Grants talk:IdeaLab/Don't feed the trolls

Clarification please

I'd like to politely ask for some clarification in the language used for this proposal.

The description of this project uses the word troll in the title, but goes on to discuss harassment. Is there a distinction between the two? Could that be better addressed to clarify the focus?

“In the world community, one may encounter communication styles considered offensive within some social circles. Rejecting those communications may undesirably restrict Wikipedia to some subset of the world community.”

How do you propose rejecting these communication styles would restrict Wikipedia? Could you better describe what styles would be permitted and which would not? What constitutes offensive? I'm missing some nuance here. :)

"An individual perceiving harassment should be encouraged to avoid responding for some period of time, preferably involving at least one sleep cycle. During that period, the user might get some physical exercise, edit some other subject, or research some subject of interest; but the delay should include time to consider why the offensive action was interpreted as offensive, and if there might be alternative interpretation."

This sounds like victim blaming, and has the potential to discourage participation from those who are marginalized or otherwise underrepresented. What should the offender do? Why are you so sure the problem is with the offended party? Should the offender also 'cool off' in situations where one is being harassed/trolled?

Thank you for your time and I wish you the best with your project.

Ckoerner (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

My post is mostly addressing more general issues with "Don't feed the trolls". But more specific to the idea, I agree that this idea as currently is confusing since it seems to be combining the people doing deliberate trolling with people who inadvertently speak in a manner that someone else finds concerning. Sometimes for a variety of reasons people do have trouble working together because of problems with miscommunication. If there is genuine miscommunication, I don't think that one party has a free pass to here. Everyone, both the writer and reader, need to work harder to have better communication. If people are misunderstanding your posts. It is also on you to modify them for easier parsing. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Distinction between troll & harassment: There may be shades of difference, but we should not allow semantics to obscure some fundamental similarities. Trolling is a competitive communication style attempting to embarrass or intimidate another and diminish their standing in the group discussion. Harassment is a perception of focused negative attention on an individual. Both are perceptions by listeners. Those speaking may not perceive their voice as inappropriate. While the focus here is on keeping those perceiving themselves as harassed, we should similarly avoid losing contributors whose communication styles are perceived as harassing.

I question the validity of characterizing harassed individuals as weaker. Individuals perceiving harassment have a lower emotional pain threshold; but they may be more capable than the aggressive individual troll at gaining community support. It isn't victim blaming to encourage those perceiving harassment to become better listeners by raising their pain threshold and allowing the larger community time to take appropriate actions. Thewellman (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

While I don't disagree that we (current contributors in wikimedia community) can engage in some preventative practices to help people understand that some types of language or conduct is unacceptable. But that does not mean that we should characterize people of people who are correctly offended or put off by bullying or name calling that is offensive as having a lower pain threshold or needing fixing in some way. There are people who are targets of abuse because of their identity. We need create a safe and friendly environment for everyone to contribute because it is the ethical correct way to run WMF and also because must happen for WMF projects to create content without systemic biases. I see reinforcing Don't feed the trolls as a step backward since it put the emphasis on the person being trolled to fix the problem. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't deny the existence of reprehensible harassment. My concern is with the logistics of protecting individuals truly suffering from harassment, without inappropriately sheltering individuals who refuse to engage in discussion: I'm too sensitive to listen to people who disagree with me. Make them go away. Useful remedies for inappropriate behavior require time for our limited administrator resources to evaluate the situation and take corrective measures. Is it unreasonable to ask those perceiving themselves at risk to practice risk minimization until the situation can be addressed? Thewellman (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with what you are saying. But the attitude that the idea as written conveys is that the person being trolled/harassed is not clever or savvy about internet harassment or bullying in general. And that by being improving the conduct of target that the situation will be better. I disagree with that idea on many levels and think that it is harmful to the community of editors, the content the community is creating, and the target.

If someone is being bullied to stop them editing an article or trolled to get back at target group, or just for laughs, then they should never have to engage with the person doing the bullying. We need to have a better trained group of allies for common targets of harassment who can step in a improve the situation. Currently, administrators or other people who intervening in problematic situation as first responders don't have any training about the best ways to manage harassment. A good first step would be training administrators and functionaries to have good listening skills and on the best practices for being an ally to people being bullied. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Problems with the "Don't feed the trolls" practice.

Hello Supporters of the "Don't feed the troll" idea.

There are significant problems with the idea as a measure to deal with harassment on Wikipedia. Several of the issues are pointed out in the writing of Whitney Phillips and others. I'll highlight several of them.

1. The terms troll or trolling.

   a) The terms have a broad meaning and cover everything from a comment made deliberately to get the better of someone in a discussion to serious cyberbullying with death threats or attempts to cause significant harm to an individual, group, or organization.

   b) The terms troll or trolling overlooks the idea that a subset of an online community may be engaging in conduct that is unwelcoming to people who are not in their inner circle. Or that everyone occasionally can lose their temper and engage in behavior that is rude and appears to be trolling.

   c)Lumping all of these behaviors under one name is harmful because it diminishes the problem of serious online harassment and also misses the need to offer friendly support to someone having a bad day.

2. "Don't feed the trolls" shifts the responsibility for the disruption in the community from the harassser to the person who is the target.

   Victim blaming is a significant problem especially since underrepresented group in the community will be over represented as targets of harassment.

   There is intolerance for the range of normal responses to harassment. It is perfectly normal for people to get upset when they are harassed. For some people being harassed, not responding is not a good option.

3. Don't feed the trolls causes more problems than it solves.

   The main response to harassment is for many people is to leave a discussion or the community because they don't want to deal with the conflict and negativity. Left unchecked harassers will take control of the situation and give the community a bad name.

   "Don't feed the trolls" as the primary way to respond to harassment leaves the community ill prepared to identify abusive conduct that is damaging the community's ability to meet its mission.

• A Brief History of Trolls Whitney Phillips.
• Don't feed the trolls? Its not that simple. Whitney Phillips

A better response is for an individual and the community to take control of the situation and give the type of response that is appropriate to the situation. While it is true that actively ignoring the harasser or deescalating might be a sensible response in some situation. It shouldn't be the only step taken. An appropriate response might be to have an ally call out the abusive conduct and allow the target to feel supported and not need to handle the situation alone in silence. And the person being harassed be offered advice about possible other steps.

And most importantly, the target should not be made to feel as if they are responsible for causing the situation to escalate, even if they respond in a dramatic way. Remember one of the traits of a trollish type harasser is to keep persisting until they get a response. So, the target ignoring for two weeks and then responding poorly on the 15 day is going to happen even if they are trying to follow the Don't feed the troll advice.

Should We Feed Trolls This piece in The Atlantic also lays out a good case for why a response to trolling may or may not be appropriate. But it also points out that a bigger community and societal response is needed to end the bullying that is too common online.

I'm pleased that WMF is engaging the community to find ways to manage harassment, and hopeful that new initiative methods will be identified and funded from this Inspire Campaign. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• There are significant problems with your idea, namely that 'trolling' and 'harassment' have such a vicious edge to them and are routinely misused to mean 'disagreement' and 'stuff I don't want to see' that what happens when we institutionalize our response is actually a sanctioned vicious response to outgroup opinion. Essentially, what is happening here on this lab.--TParis (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi TParis, I would appreciate you elaborating on your post. Could you be more specific about what you see happening here on this lab? Thanks, Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've seen front-page endorsements while opposition is hidden on the back page. I've had my opinion called garbage because it doesn't fit the status quo. I've been told that if there were an "ignore" feature, that my comments would've been ignored already. And I've seen proposals that don't fit the "must do something" opinion of the lab coordinator removed from the lab. Those are just examples of what has happened in the last 2 hours. What I am saying is, I've already been treated like a troll because I don't agree which is what I think your idea leads to.--TParis (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
      • You can now add pages deleted under false criteria by User:Matiia. Used G1, which is for test edits. I didn't see "doesn't fit WMF narrative" in that criteria.--TParis (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

TParis, FYI, G1 is actually not just for test edits, Meta:Deletion policy says: No meaningful content or history: This includes test edits (e.g., "asdf" or "Can I really create a page here?"), obvious nonsense, corrupt images, legitimately blanked pages, or simple vandalism. I didn't even put a reason myself, I used the reason given by a Staffer. That deletion was requested by one of the staffer working on Grants:IdeaLab, you may be interested in asking him for more info about it. Matiia (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it works on Meta wikipedia, but on EN administrators are responsible for the buttons that they push. If I had a CSD tag that didn't apply, I'd remove it - staffer or not. But my beef isn't with you, it's with how the deletion propagates the effort to silence opposing opinions.--TParis (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• @FloNight:: Almost all "victims of internet harassment" are actually "people getting into fights on the Internet." One-sided harassment is rare compared to the vastly more common case of two people getting into fights repeatedly. People who think that Internet harassment is common are invariably people who get into fights with other people on the Internet frequently, but do not recognize their own aggressive, antisocial behavior as wrong.

This is why "Don't feed the trolls" is good advice; what it really is is "Don't get into fights," but phrased in a way where the person who doesn't respond gets to feel morally superior for not doing so. In reality, most "internet harassment" is just that - two people who are getting into fights and deliberately provoking each other. By making it a policy not to do this, you can get people to think twice about it. This is basic human psychology.

As far as "shifting the responsibility for the disruption in the community from the harasser to the victim": no, it doesn't. If you get into a fight with someone, you are being just as disruptive as they are. You are not justified in your behavior. Remember, almost all victims are also perpetrators, because it isn't harassment, it is a fight. Trolling is still negative behavior. But if you get into fights with people, you are culpable. In legal practice, if someone punches someone else at a bar, then walks away, and then you punch them, that's not you defending yourself - that's you getting into a fight. And in almost all cases of "internet harassment", that's what's really going on - the person jabs at the other person, then the second person jabs back. "I'm the victim!" cries person #2. No, you're a participant.

Actual harassment is much easier to deal with, because it is repeated, obviously one-sided behavior. This is easily dealt with by tools we already have, and is very obvious, because the harasser is constantly following around and pinging the victim.

Once you understand that most "victims" are themselves also perpetrators, and most "harassment" is actually "fighting", the mentality behind "Don't feed the trolls" makes a lot more sense - most of the people who are getting involved are people who are behaving badly. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Titanium Dragon, your comment reinforces my thinking that troll and trolling are not useful terms because they are used in substantially different ways.

There is a broad spectrum of conduct on the internet and Wikipedia that is problematic. People fighting with each other is one type. Wikipedia certainly sees this type of disruptive conduct. But I wouldn't characterize it as trolling, harassment or as the most difficult type of disruptive user conduct to manage.

While I agree that all types of disruptive user conduct needs to be addressed for WMF projects to be a more welcoming work environment, I'm interested in talking about solutions for harassment because I know that it exists in significant enough volume on Wikipedia to interfere with recruitment of people who are under represented as editors. And harassment causes editors and administrators to have burn out and leave or reduce their contributions.

And I firmly believe that WMF contributors should not have to be hardened to a harassment or willing to accept bullying of themselves or other people.

I see ideas like this one reinforcing the status quo. Telling people to not over react is not an appropriate solution for serious harassment. Targets of harassment and the Wikimedians addressing harassment need better tools and processes. I'm hopeful that this Inspire Campaign will jump start the process. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"As far as "shifting the responsibility for the disruption in the community from the harasser to the victim": no, it doesn't. If you get into a fight with someone, you are being just as disruptive as they are. You are not justified in your behaviour. Remember, almost all victims are also perpetrators, because it isn't harassment, it is a fight." There is a clear difference between an argument and harassment. One spills over into the other quite easily, and it is reasonable to side with the person claiming to feel harassed in the first instance rather than assume that they are overreacting; it's just assuming good faith. Asking people to walk away from harassment gives the harasser "the road", when we should be doing the opposite.StuartPrior (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Grants to improve your project

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. The deadline for draft submissions is tommorrow. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

• Submit a grant request
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants or Project and Event Grants

The next open call for Project Grants will be in October 2016. You can also consider applying for a Rapid Grant, if your project does not require a large amount of funding, as applications can be submitted anytime. Feel free to ping me if you need help getting your proposal started. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 22:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)