User:Odd Starter/On Moderation, Drama and Harassment
I'm sure that to some people, my attitude concerning Moderator's duties is rather frustrating and kinda strange. After all, I'm a Moderator, right? Shouldn't I, Moderator of these forums, be maintaining order? Isn't that, like, what Kevan chose you for?
Well, No. Admittedly, I don't have Kevan's motivations on hand, so I can't really say why he chose me. I've always assumed that he chose me much like I think new Moderators get chosen - because they showed that, as wiki users, they cared about the wiki, and could be trusted with the abilities that having sysop status provides. And at each point in choosing new Moderators, it can't really be said that the board was in need of strong discipline. In fact, Katthew's de-sysoping[1], I think, was a clear indicator that Kevan's true intentions in his selection of Mods was the exact opposite. I do not think Kevan wanted strongarms, I think he wanted, in effect, "first citizens".
Moderators: First Citizens
What do I mean by this? What I mean is that, in a community of regular old citizens, we should be the exact same sort of citizen. The addition of Moderator abilities shouldn't affect our status in the community - sure, the kind of people who get Moderator abilities are probably the kind of people who care about the wiki, but in theory they'd be caring about the wiki regardless of their abilities. I'd like to think that these people would be just as active and involved in the running of the wiki even without their abilities.
The addition of these new abilities gives us extra responsibilities, but shouldn't translate to placing us on some higher pedestal. We are not guardians of Kevan's Order, neither are we Disciples of Kevan, translating His word to the masses below (and if we were, Kevan is not a particular vocal God. He says barely anything to us). We are regular users, just like you, but with a few abilities that we're expected to use for the good of the wiki. Or, at least, we should be.
Who Watches the Wiki?
So if we're not the guardians of order, then who is? Who is responsible for ensuring that the wiki doesn't grind to a halt and destroy everything that all users have been working hard for? That answer should be obvious by now - if we're only regular users, then clearly only regular users are left. Thus, the regular users are responsible for ensuring that the wiki runs smoothly.
I'm not unaware that this includes us moderators, but I think there's a distinct issue here - even if it's our job, it's not exclusively our job. Anything a regular user can do to maintain order should be done by regular users to maintain order. It's a simple philosophy. Putting the burden of maintaining the wiki on the shoulders of a tiny minority of users is a recipe for burnout, and a certain recipe for disaster, as sysops are continually subjected to the tiny minority of the community who really make life hell for everyone else, and slowly start realising that they can just not respond, and make it not their problem.
Drama and Harassment
So, how does this relate to the drama and harassment on the wiki? Currently there is much debate as to how to reduce the level of drama, and make our conflict resolution "work", and how to stop people from harassing other people, and these are all good things - the Policies that worked initially are obviously not going to work forever, and it's great that, of all people, the regular users are the ones that are coming up with new plans, new ideas and new perspectives on the problems we face. It's really quite invigorating to watch the wiki community as a whole take an interest in the issues.
But with that said, a lot of users seem to be of the opinion that the only way harassment can be resolved is with umpires, with judges that are above the other users, who are to dispense justice to the regular user with a sense of finality. A lot of users seem to believe that because the regular user clearly isn't mature enough to deal with conflict resolution that the dealing of conflict resolution should be taken out of their hands, to someone who we know is able to deal with it. A lot of users seem to think, frankly, that we're Moderators in the forum sense - that our respectability and abilities should be used to effectively pull out the wiki weeds, assuming that we'll be above reproach, and clearly unbiased.
Given the discussion of my philosophy above, you can predict what my response these users is.
A Brief Digression - Forums vs Wikis
Before I continue, I should probably show how I think us Moderators are different from Moderators elsewhere. A good example are the various Internet forums that exist around the internet. On most forums, there are a dedicated team of Moderators who's primary responsibility is to ensure that the forum remains civil, that those who would seek to destroy the community are nipped in the bud, and to help mould the community in ways both social and technical.
Why is this? There's several good reasons. In a purely technical sense, Forums force these duties onto Moderators. Forum software is traditionally built in a way that disempowers users - Users can post, occaisionally edit their own text, but not much else. This is done in the belief that what users post is perpetual - once a user posts something, it's there forever, set in stone. What is said cannot be unsaid, and more importantly, can't/shouldn't be altered. So, safeguards are made within the software to ensure that users can't touch other user's text, because clearly there's the possibility of foul play. Of course, in the event of the user using his own text to perform unsocial acts, someone has to be able to act and remove the user. Thus, Moderators. Since noone else is capable of performing this maintenance, the Moderators shoulder it all. And in most communities, this is considered all well and good.
On a wiki, however, the situation is a little different. Wiki software tends to be a little more trusting - just because a user can abuse their abilities to do horrible stuff, doesn't mean that we should disempower users so they can't abuse it. Instead, Wikis are set up in order to allow, well, anyone, to correct the abuses quickly and easily. By removing the boundaries to participating in the community, it's believed, we can expect that at least one person will. More importantly, the wiki users are given the tools to ensure that nothing they do is really problematic - old revisions are always lying around, so if someone screws the wiki up, we effectively just pick up the backups and continue on our way.
Of course, there are still problems - some acts can't be fixed, or, by their very action, would be useless if given to everyone. These are things like deletions and protections. Deletions are permanent by their nature (well, actually they're not here, but bear with me), and the ability to protect and unprotect would be useless if you gave it to everyone. So, this wiki has a special status that allows a smaller group of users to perform these duties. It's expected that if you look trustworthy enough, you'll get the abilities, so users who don't have them shouldn't be too concerned - eventually they'll get them too.
As such, sysops aren't really a higher class of user, and all users are entrusted with the wiki's protection. People might abuse the priveliges we give them, but enough other users will be ready to resolve the damage they make that we don't need to rely on sysops (indeed, some wikis don't have true ban abilities, reasoning that they aren't needed. They just let a user vandalise the wiki until they get bored and leave, then fix the mess afterwards).
Drama and Harassment, Part 2
So, where am I going with this? The technical aspects of a wiki shouldn't be denigrated or restricted because we're afraid that someone is going to abuse them - since everyone else has the same abilities, fixing the wiki is child's play.
But all of this is based on trust. We need to trust that enough users want to keep the wiki around that those who want to destroy it won't succeed. And frankly, deciding that only sysops are capable of defending the wiki is a pretty clear lack of trust. Do we truly believe that only those with sysop abilities are capable of resolving disputes? I don't believe that.
And while it's true that some users may not be mature enough to be trusted to engage in conflict resolution, I think it's essential to act as if we do. It's well known that if you treat someone like dirt, pretty soon they're going to act to your expectations. If you expect someone to be a troll, pretty soon they'll act like a troll. However, treat someone like a reasonable, well received person, and you may be surprised to find that they act like a reasonable, well received person. So, if we act as if users can't be trusted to resolve their own disputes, pretty soon the users won't be able to be trusted to resolve their own disputes. This, I believe, is where wikis score over forums - forums treat each user as untrustworthy, and pretty soon, you start finding users who live up to those expectations. Wikis trust each user, almost unconditionally, and pretty soon, you find you can trust each user.
This is why I honestly feel that taking power away from users is a bad thing.
I appreciate comments on the above essay, but I recommend that this page's talk page is used for the purpose. I trust users to mess with this page and not destroy what I've said, but I also trust that you'll respect my wish to keep comments and content separate. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 14:37, 24 April 2006 (BST)
Footnotes
1. Alas, the evidence surrounding Katthew's de-sysoping is lost to the history purges, so many new users may have absolutely no idea as to exactly what happenned. In short, Kevan felt that Katthew was abusing the position of sysop in an attempt to enforce his will upon the wiki, by threatening use of sysop abilities. In short, he was acting very much like a forum moderator might. It was appropriate for a forum, but Kevan believed that such actions were not what he wanted in a wiki sysop.
