G2G: What do you think of this Discussion Rules proposal? [closed]

Question

21.2k views

Hi WikiTreers,

What do you think of this draft? Help:Discussion_Rules
Should it become an official WikiTree policy page?

Some of these rules are already being enforced. Badly. Mentor Intervention Requests frequently point to G2G posts as Honor Code violations. But pointing to general principles and tips on courtesy is a problem. It leaves Mentors and Mediators struggling to explain exactly why a certain message is inappropriate. And it leaves members feeling like the process is subjective. We want clear and explicit policies so that conflicts can be resolved fairly.

Some of them may seem (or be) too broad and encompassing. The idea was to make simple rules that can be objectively enforced, even if it means restricting some legitimate conversations. For example, there are certainly cases where sarcasm has been used without any hint of condescension, and cases where four messages by the same person in the same thread within one hour were all helpful. In general, I think what we risk losing is outweighed by the benefits of having objectively-enforceable rules like "no sarcasm". But maybe some of these could be worded better.

There is a risk that these rules could have a chilling effect on our community. We don't want people to overthink things and not communicate at all. I think a lot of this risk has to do with the enforcement. Moderators would need to somehow have a light touch while still being consistent and fair. (Note that there are "guidelines for moderators" on this draft but a lot of it would have to be worked out in practice.)

What do you think? To help organize the conversation, I am posting eight (!) answers of my own: one for overall agreement, one for overall disagreement, and one for disagreeing with each individual rule. Please vote up and comment on these, or post your own answer. Please do not comment on this top message. We'll hide comments at the top after they're viewed once.

By the way, citing examples from past conversations would be very helpful here, but it's probably only appropriate to use your own messages as examples.

Don't feel any need to reply here immediately. You may wish to think about these proposed rules as you are posting and reading messages. We won't take another step on this for at least two weeks (about July 15).

Thanks!

Chris

Closed as a duplicate of: What do you think of this new Discussion Rules proposal?

asked Jun 30, 2020 in The Tree House by Chris Whitten Golden Owl (1.7m points)
closed Jul 28, 2020 by Chris Whitten

22 Answers

Please see the new proposal and discussion here:
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1080262/what-do-you-think-of-this-new-discussion-rules-proposal

Thanks! — Chris Whitten, Jul 28, 2020
It probably wouldn't be moderated differently.

The proposed rules address issues that have consistently caused problems in G2G. It's not that these things were OK to do before -- most of these would fall under part IV of the Honor Code. But being "courteous" means different things to different people, so that's why it's good to have written guidelines so users can be more mindful about how they interact with other users on G2G, and moderators can know what potentially problematic behavior to look out for so they can try to stop things before they escalate into more serious issues. — Jamie Nelson, Jul 3, 2020

Chris Whitten · Answer 1 · 2020-06-30T12:15:14+0000

Show 29 previous comments

First, thank you for the consultative approach!

Second, I think these go a long way to meeting the need for clear guidelines for discussions and mentor intervention. On the other hand, I'm wondering if the author(s) may be feeling a little frustrated, because the language seems to be a little stronger in places than may be intended.

I've been thinking about ducks, as in what looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. In my experience, a policy can be expressed in various ways, and I'm not sure that 'rule' is the most appropriate term in this case. It seems to me that there are alternatives that might be more specific and clear, and do a better job of achieving the objectives.

I understand a strict rule as something that is policed and enforced. For example, when I joined WT, it was a rule to sign the Honour Code - you simply couldn't join without that step.

In this case, I'm reading about exceptions that add shades of gray. I can see latitude to get away with breaking any one of them, in certain circumstances, or if you can do so without causing offence or a request for mentor intervention. Further, human nature being what it is, I've seen policies that have been labelled too strongly create resistance, or serve as a challenge to a game of chicken. Finally, the mentors provide a form of peer mediation, rather than police, and I'm reading an intent to support them in their current role, not to adjust it.

commented Jul 2, 2020 by Laurie Giffin Owl (111k points)

I distinctly remember the discussions about GDPR Helen alludes to (below). I am sensitive to a difference of treatment between those who belong to the majority and those who do not and as a Continental, non-Anglophone European, completely agree about having to "walk on eggshells". Obviously Helen can explain it far better than me. However, unlike the majority here, I would expect a stricter guideline than what is currently provided by the Honor Code to reduce that difference, not make it worse.

I quickly learned to avoid the GDPR threads and other similar discussions, and as a matter of fact since then I have been less active in G2G. There was a before and an after these discussions for me, and I can safely say that I have never felt as welcome here as before, ever since. These GDPR threads are in fact a perfect example of the way G2G is a hostile environment. (for those who do not remember, or did not notice anything particular, Europeans were pointed to in several posts, as a group, as being responsible for the situation, at least one post calling for exclusion of all European members).

(Sorry if this does not make sense. It was originally posted as a reply in another thread).

commented Jul 4, 2020 by Isabelle Martin Owl (647k points)
edited Jul 6, 2020 by Isabelle Martin

As someone who recently dealt with a very personal attack on G2G, I understand all too well how quickly things can get out of hand here, and how frequently things being said can be misunderstood. What seems like an obvious response to someone, to be kind and respectful, other people see as opportunities to crack jokes on the poster's behalf. We have people who make mistakes or are doing something that others believe needs improved upon, and rather than start a polite discussion with them, come to G2G to call them names-not addressing what they're doing but rather personally attacking them.

Overall, is G2G a friendly place to be? It most certainly can be. Unfortunately, it has also become a place where we're walking on eggshells to avoid being trolled. I have witnessed multiple instances of someone asking for help here and being ridiculed (I can see the hidden posts). I have witnessed people attacking others, then immediately hiding the comment so no one but the person being emailed sees it (or so they think) in order to try to attack others under the radar.

What these rules give everyone are concrete guidelines to follow. It isn't that they aren't already being followed by most of our members-they are, and I can absolutely understand how they seem over the top or unnecessary because they're already mostly observed. It is for the few who feel the need to constantly toe the line and continue to get away with doing so at others' expense because it hasn't until this point been written specifically that they can't do what they're doing.

As far as Moderators and enforcement, there are a lot of eyes able to look at whatever situations may arise and help make sure that there is room for differences in translation and misunderstandings. Some of my favorite WikiTreers to work with are non-Anglophones, and I vastly appreciate y'all's very direct communication style. Trust me in my saying, that will be accounted for. What we're seeing isn't something as slight as a misunderstood non-English speaker trying to explain something that doesn't translate well. What we're seeing is very obvious snark at others' expense, or outright rude comments, or obvious hijacking of threads in order to get attention for some topic that wasn't addressed exactly as the poster had hoped.

As mentioned before, if you haven't had any, or many, posts flagged and hidden, you most likely won't notice much difference.

Thank you, Chris, with the time you've put into drafting this so far. I look forward to future drafts following up on the helpful insight others have posted here. There are definitely some things I hadn't considered in my first read through and the comments here have been helpful.

commented Jul 6, 2020 by Abby Glann Owl (965k points)

Thank you for that comment Abby, I really hope that most of us who haven't had comments flagged and hidden will be able to continue as before. I am still wary though about what I perceive to be very rigid rules which I think could stifle discussion.

You mention that you can see hidden posts. I think that this 'ability' should be made clear within any regulations eventually decided on. I recently hid a post. I decided that discretion was the better part of valour and hid a post on a thread which could fairly easily be related to an individual member. Nevertheless, I wanted to keep a record of my concern. I was extremely surprised to get messages from leaders asking for more details; I hadn't realised that hidden messages could still be read by anyone other than the creator. Maybe I'm naive but it could be that others also don't realise this and aren't hiding comments from malevolence.

commented Jul 8, 2020 by Helen Ford Owl (582k points)

Hello Helen,

I think adding a line that the Team, Leaders, and Moderators can see hidden posts should be something that is easily added to any documentation. To be frank, we rarely think much of what we see-the vast majority of it (I am the Team member who most frequently "cleans out" the hidden posts) is either spam or oopses where someone posted something in the wrong spot then emptied and hid that post after they moved what they had said. There are some that are hidden and we never know why, but so long as it is the person who wrote that ends up hiding it, it generally isn't questioned. It's the every once in awhile ones that cause the issue, where we see someone bullying someone else, then hiding their own posts in order to try to slip under the radar. If that happens, we make sure MIRs are filed so there's documentation that that person is being inconsiderate and not acting in accordance with the Honor Code. Setting these guidelines should help Moderators help make that same call, if they see those comments and they haven't already been hidden. Or to help file MIRs when the bullied parties are afraid to.

When in doubt about any of this process, you can always, always ask someone. A Leader you trust or a quick message to info@ if that isn't something you're comfortable with and we can explain things, or most probably direct you to the help page that does. I know they can be a little hard to find every once in awhile. :-)

commented Jul 13, 2020 by Abby Glann Owl (965k points)

Helen (and I'm writing this as an explanation of my position; I am not trying to convince you) my issue is precisely that aggressive posting also stifles discussion. By aggressive I mean comments that lack courtesy and are unnecessarily confrontational as well as multiple, repeated similar comments in the same conversation. I believe there are contributors who shy away from these types of discussions; and someone can have something of value to contribute, without wanting to engage in a brisk, and often fruitless, back-and-forth.

I hope that the "3 posts rule" is not going to be used on active, but instructive threads, like the recent one about Lords of the Manor - in this thread though there was a flurry of posts in a relatively short time, each was thoughtful and brought something new. An intervention should only be warranted if the conversation became heated, or started running in circles. Or, another example, the comments added after my answer to the "Dutch Roots" thread - several quick comments, but separately all helpful.

commented Jul 13, 2020 by Isabelle Martin Owl (647k points)

Chris Whitten · Answer 2 · 2020-06-30T12:15:46+0000

OK Boss, at the possible risk of excommunication or being classed as a fringe lunatic, I'll cast my vote for the thumbs-down alternative. I have been here over eight years now (my entire genealogy career!), and have participated in G2G almost from the beginning. It's no exaggeration to say that I have found G2G to be one of the most useful, informative, educational, and entertaining aspects of WikiTree, and certainly one of the features that sets it apart from other genealogy sites. So my appeal is "Please don't screw that up!" You allude to the rules possibly having a "chilling effect," and I think that's a real thing that shouldn't be glossed over. I do recognize and support the desire to keep it a polite, congenial, and helpful forum, and I do recognize that the users cover the whole spectrum of sensitivity, thin-skinnedness, and eloquence. And I admit I have said some things in the forum that I would probably take back if I could, and I've seen others say some things that would prompt me to smash their keyboards if I could.

So with that said, I'm scratching my head over why we now need a rulebook and some enforcers to govern our conduct here. Why, pray tell? Have we become less civil? Are we trending toward more abusive or condescending behavior? Are people complaining? I honestly believe that the users and participants in G2G, even newcomers, understand that it's just an open, free-form discussion forum where they're getting the personal views and comments of other users in their own styles, not official, vetted, site-approved answers to questions. I don't think there's any way the proposed set of rules can take subjectivity and interpretation out of the equation. And I don't think there's any way you could get consistent and objective enforcement of the rules. I'd also question if there are really enough moderators to police the forum that way, or if they should be spending their time that way.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Dennis Barton Owl (631k points)

OK Boss, at the possible risk of excommunication or being classed as a fringe lunatic, I'll cast my vote for the thumbs-down alternative. I have been here over eight years now (my entire genealogy career!), and have participated in G2G almost from the beginning. It's no exaggeration to say that I have found G2G to be one of the most useful, informative, educational, and entertaining aspects of WikiTree, and certainly one of the features that sets it apart from other genealogy sites. So my appeal is "Please don't screw that up!" You allude to the rules possibly having a "chilling effect," and I think that's a real thing that shouldn't be glossed over. I do recognize and support the desire to keep it a polite, congenial, and helpful forum, and I do recognize that the users cover the whole spectrum of sensitivity, thin-skinnedness, and eloquence. And I admit I have said some things in the forum that I would probably take back if I could, and I've seen others say some things that would prompt me to smash their keyboards if I could.

So with that said, I'm scratching my head over why we now need a rulebook and some enforcers to govern our conduct here. Why, pray tell? Have we become less civil? Are we trending toward more abusive or condescending behavior? Are people complaining? I honestly believe that the users and participants in G2G, even newcomers, understand that it's just an open, free-form discussion forum where they're getting the personal views and comments of other users in their own styles, not official, vetted, site-approved answers to questions. I don't think there's any way the proposed set of rules can take subjectivity and interpretation out of the equation. And I don't think there's any way you could get consistent and objective enforcement of the rules. I'd also question if there are really enough moderators to police the forum that way, or if they should be spending their time that way.

commented by Dennis Barton

.

I think Dennis has said it very well.

I have already hidden a recent question because it would fall afoul of the "no non-genealogy topics" rule" .. so, yeah, chilled.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Melanie Paul Owl (495k points)

Chris,

One of the issues that I have whenever something new is proposed is that the underlying causes of whatever the problem seems to be is never adequately explained.

Human communication is very complex and is rife with exceptions to almost every rule that can be put into place. You cannot, and will not, be able to create a set of rules to "objectively" enforce without infringing on legitimate and desired conversation. Facebook can't do it. Twitter can't do it. Reddit can't do it. What makes you think that WikiTree (with its much more limited resources) will be able to? It absolutely requires human intervention and making judgement calls about the spirit of the rules, and not the letter of the law. If one could make a set of "objective" rules that works, we wouldn't need people to review, it could all be reviewed by a software bot.

I have moderated discussion boards before, on other sites, for years. It is a challenge, and at most times, a thankless job. But having the right people in place, who are trustworthy in their judgment, is absolutely what is needed. The suggested rules, in their current form, are ridiculous. When you yourself can immediately name several exceptions to the rule, then why are they being proposed in the first place? All of these "rules" have acceptable exceptions. That's why guidelines are needed and not rules.

You need to have moderators that you trust in, that are willing to assert themselves in enforcing community standards and guidelines, and that you back them in their decisions 100%. It will always require a certain amount of subjective judgement. Just like life itself.

If these rules were created so moderators don't have to think, don't have to make a judgement call, and don't have to endure unwarranted criticism, then perhaps you should not be looking at changing the rules, but instead looking at better moderator training, or backing your moderators, or getting different moderators who are able and willing to make a hard call.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Eric Weddington Owl (581k points)

Thank you Dennis!

Chris said, "Some of these rules are already being enforced. Badly." If rules are being enforced badly, the worst solution is more rules. Under bad enforcement, more rules just mean more bad enforcement.

As for chilling effect, the proposed rules are like liquid helium. To me, they seem to institutionalize the growing politically correct woke virtue-signalling trend on G2G, in which we must all seek at all costs to avoid making even one person uncomfortable. Such a regime is at once impossible to attain, and begs to be abused to support one agenda or another. A world where no one is allowed to be discomforted has no art, music, or comedy. A discussion forum where everyone walks on eggshells for fear of giving offense is deadly dull in the short term and doomed in the long term. Not to worry though. Even without new rules, the cultural shift will do for G2G soon enough.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Living Tardy Owl (797k points)
edited Jun 30, 2020 by Living Tardy

We've had a Moderators project since about 2016: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:G2G_Moderators

The Discussion Rules are needed to help Moderators be more objective about moderating and to give them guidelines they can use when they recognize that something is heading in the wrong direction, and they need to redirect the discussion.

If a Moderator is unsure about a situation, then it can be discussed in the Moderators Google Group so that one person isn't responsible for any decisions that are made.

Also, as I mentioned above, there are plenty of people who avoid G2G now because of the tendency for discussions to devolve into debates and for topics to run off the rails. I've participated in other chat groups and forums where people specifically said that they avoid G2G because of these things. So, yes, we need to have a better way to address issues when they arise. Right now, Moderators are going on a gut feeling and have never had concrete guidelines to base their decisions on.

I don't agree with Chris that moderators have been applying the few rules we have "badly." I think Moderators need clarification for how to address difficult situations that arise, and that's what these new rules provide: clarification.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Julie Ricketts Owl (551k points)

I really wanted to cry when I read the page as it stands. I understand the need for guidance rules but as written this is just screaming big brother to me. Sorry I know some of you likely worked really hard on it. But it scares me to no end. Censorship, which is really what this is talking about, is not an easy topic.

WikiTree is about sharing our families. You can't get much more personal than that. We share because we trust that others want to know about our families and learn from the experiences our ancestors have had.

When rules are too strict you drive people away. I would rather see more general guidelines that can be easily understood. But not something rigid as currently written.

I have a question. Are these rules being proposed because a large number of people are currently in violation or because a small number of people are causing an issue? Or are they coming out of a fear of what might happen? In my opinion, writing rules should be done with a soft hand and allow for the many shades of gray that accompany the use of langage which is an imprecise mode of communication.

Don't penalize the majority if what is happening is a small number of people who may need some coaching.

Some guidelines with reasons attached to them would make more sense to me.

1. Please avoid political discussions that refer to candidates or their affiliations. Also avoid discussing pending legislation or things that are not directly related to genealogy coming out of any governmental agencies. Many members of our WikiTree family have divergent views. Our focus is on genealogy and there are plenty of online forums for political discussions.

2. WikiTree is a Genealogy forum and as such posts should relate to genealogy. Members from WikiTree come from diverse cultures and backgrounds. Some have more direct ways of communicating while others have mastered the language of diplomacy. We want everyone to be able to express their opinions but do want people to do so in a way that does not target someone or make someone feel unwelcome. Treat everyone with respect and how you would want to be treated yourself.

Please rethink what you are trying to do and why.

But thank you so much for asking and not just doing it!

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Laura Bozzay Golden Owl (1.1m points)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with everyone in this part of the thread. This is basically taking a nuke to an anthill. Sure you get all off the jerks gone. But, you eliminate some of the people who want to have fun.

Granted, we do have some jerks. Why punish everyone for the actions of a small group?

Here's a plan that I think might help.

1. Institute a warning/strike system for repeat offenders. If they continue to cause a problem, they get banned. That strategy has worked in the past in forums I have administered and could be used here in conjunction with the Mentors project.

2. While having a rules page may be a good idea on paper, it might be a good idea to lax it a little and have something saying "The following things won't be tolerated". That being racism, abuse, etc.

While forums DO need to have rules and guidelines, it's a good idea to talk about it. Some things, like say politics, should be avoided. If someone goes out of their way to ignore that or a mod, they get the boot. It's that simple.

We might want to also alter the flag system a bit. Sometimes that might get abused. But, that's really my own personal preference.

That said, I have to also agree with Laura and Julie above. If there is an issue a mod needs to discuss, bring it up in private with the other admins. That way things can be talked about and there wouldn't be a need to use that nuke on an anthill.

Thanks for at least asking everyones' opinions first. Too many people have just said "BAM! Here are the rules! Like it or leave." Discussion is important and we have a great community here. We just need some regulation but not a ton.

Just have moderators talk in the group when problems arise.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Chris Ferraiolo Golden Owl (1.0m points)

@Julie, I can accept that you may be more aware of "things that have come to pass" than many of us. But that could also mean that you're too close to the trees to see the forest. It seems a very curious phenomenon to me that non-participants in G2G who criticize it in other chat groups and forums could be helping to drive the rules and policies that govern it. Is the presumption that they would become eager participants if we were all nicer? I suspect the only way you could really solve the problem of occasional "unsafe" or off-the-rails comments would be to have the moderators review all comments in advance before allowing them to be posted. It didn't sound like that's part of the proposal, but that's where you'd need to go with it.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Dennis Barton Owl (631k points)

@Dennis: Of course people in other chat groups or forums aren't driving these rules. However, it's indicative of a problem if people -- who are former participants in G2G -- are no longer participating because they don't want to deal with the people out here who are causing problems.

My being involved with Conflict Escalation actually gives me a very broad view of our "forest." Those of us who are involved in the Conflict Escalation process strive to be equitable and unbiased, which means we try very hard to look at and understand both sides of the story when a conflict arises.

Also, I spend quite a bit of time reading posts in G2G to help find people who are good at helping other people (Mentors) and people we can trust to watch over the tree (Rangers). So, no I don't think I'm too close to the problematic "trees." I see both the good and bad parts of G2G.

And, actually, all of that is irrelevant because I'm not the one proposing these rules. I can just see a need for them. :-)

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Julie Ricketts Owl (551k points)

"I really don't think that the majority of people commenting here need to worry about this affecting you, personally, but it does give any member recourse when they start to experience a problem in G2G."

I'm struggling to express the problems I have with this statement. First, members already have recourse when they experience problems in G2G. They can and do complain to mods or mentors or whomever.

Second, it says to me, "Don't worry about these little rules. You are a good person and we promise we won't use them against you." Which is always the part of the pitch when people want to suppress behavior they don't like. So you go along and don't worry about the little detailed rules until one day they smack you in the head.

Third, it suggests that these rules would be used to placate those who complain. The flip side of this is that speech on G2G that escapes complaint will be allowed, when the same speech might be punished if someone complains. That sounds like bad enforcement to me. Come to think of it, that's kind of how it works now. I don't see how more rules will fix that.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Living Tardy Owl (797k points)
edited Jul 1, 2020 by Living Tardy

Here is a a basic question.   Why are non members allowed o post in G2G?   I guess I kind of assumed (yes a dangerous thing to do) that posters are members.   I understand guests on the site but I would think that before being allowed to post in G2G they should have to at the very least read the rules and sign them. Rules for newbies is far different than applying rules to everyone.

Once you sign the Honor Code a lot of what you wrote as rules are already covered.   I am generally pro guidance not so much pro rules because they are generally heavier handed and not something you see a lot of in forums like G2G.   Generally forums have guidance and I am good with guidance. I would think a guest post should be a moderated post meaning someone releases it into the forum.   Don't know if we have that technology but given the current climate in online abuse (which thankfully I have not seen take root here) I understand the need for structure. I just found the rules as written a bit heavy. They seemed to indicate a lack of trust of the members and that is how I reacted to them.

When I think of G2G I think of a membership helping each other. There is a level of trust that comes with that and goes both ways. We are all signatories to the Honor Code who are members. If guests are the issue then address guests. If a member or members are the issue than address it with the member using the Honor Code as the guiding light. I just am having a hard time understanding what you gain with these rules that you don't already have. Unless you are addressing non signatories and then in my opinion they should be made to agree to something before being allowed to post in G2G.   I still do not have a sense of what % of posts we are talking about here. 5% or less? 10%or less. More than 10%   The prevalence might help us understand the magnitude of the problem.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Laura Bozzay Golden Owl (1.1m points)

Laura (and in general), you've raised a question that doesn't seem to be specifically addressed in the proposed policy, and that is about non-members.

Often I've seen non-members post to G2G, thinking they can ask questions about their ancestors, and get answers--never mind if they've done any of their own research or not! And often they do get the answers. My guess is that that is one of the things that drives traffic on WikiTree, thus useful for all of us who enjoy using this free site.

Maybe there should be a specific set of rules for non-members, but I'd guess that being asked to agree to rules before they post would discourage them from posting at all. Another possibility might be (if technically feasible), a separate feed so that non-member G2G posts could be monitored more promptly.

In my time on G2G, I've only seen two really troublesome cases of non-member posts. The first was by a person who was obviously schizophrenic, and he was fairly quickly removed through the existing processes. The second was by a very abusive and insulting person, who nevertheless had information that was useful to WikiTree, and he was allowed (by a Mediator) to continue posting for that reason. In neither case would the outcome have been improved by new rules.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Living Kelts Owl (581k points)

I said my first comment about it above and I still stand to it. But there are other things coming up in this discussion:

Laura asked a lot of (imo) useful questions, and especially the questions in her first two posts aren't yet properly answered. I would like to see these answers too.

Julie K.'s topic is the enforcement of the existing rules and its transparency. Maybe if there was more transparency and objectivity in applying the existing rules we wouldn't need the rules Chris is suggesting now.

Herbert adds a good point to the discussion as well: If the rules are too tight people might not post anymore in G2G. This would just be the opposite of what the Team obviously actually wants. Julie R. said something in the sense of "there are people who stopped posting in G2G because of too many non-genealogical debates." The team probably hopes that these posters return. Out of experience from other forums I participate(d) in: It's easier to turn off current posters (make them post less in numbers and less relevant stuff) by implementing tighter rules than to make former posters return again, because "rules are now tighter and will be strictly implemented." This won't work, or at least it will take a long time to get them back, and the (far bigger) danger is that many other regular posters will go away in the process because they don't want to have to think of every single word they post.

I really think the Honor Code and the "Get out of G2G when someone or something makes you angry"-rule is enough rule to have

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Jelena Eckstädt Golden Owl (2.0m points)

Julie I looked for the response that prompted me to bring up non members. It was in reaction to something I read.. but alas I can't see it now... But i you follow this logic...

We have the Honor Code that all Members sign. That should work in G2G and all over WikiTree

So if there is a need for more rules it has to stem from non members? That would kind of be inferred.

I don't I ever realized we had non members posting in G2G. That was a bad assumption on my part. Most sites I am on you have to agree to something before you post if you are not a full fledged member. Hence my post.

It adds a layer of expectations and security. I just wonder what is prompting all of this. I have seen general responses but I have yet to see a case made that says the Honor Code is not good enough and this is why....

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Laura Bozzay Golden Owl (1.1m points)

@Laura, we have had non-members posting for a long time, probably since the beginning of G2G. They usually show up as "anonymous" with just an ip address, and you can't tell them from a member who just isn't logged in. My impression is that a high percentage of their posts say something like "your data is wrong for my great uncle Joe's second wife, so please fix it." I can't recall any posts from non-members that would have been likely to upset anybody, so I'm skeptical that that's the problem. Julie R. says that non-participants are complaining in other forums and chat rooms that G2G gets into too many debates and the topics go "off the rails." That really doesn't sound like a non-member concern either. But I'm as mystified as you are about what really driving this initiative, and hopefully we'll find out sooner or later.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Dennis Barton Owl (631k points)

I can imagine the past situations that make this discussion necessary.

Perhaps some rules should be established, to help the mentors and mediators who have to address conflict…… but you’ll never be able to write rules to replace good judgement, experience and training. If you need to expand on these topics for helping Mentors etc…… fine, but it should be an internal training memo that isn’t posted for all WikiTree members…. I don’t believe the rest of us need that depth of discussion. The WikiTree members who are outside the boundaries are not usually looking for written rules.

What concerns me most is “don’t go off topic”…. Granted, topics are sometimes “hijacked”, but is it so common it’s worth smothering a sense of community? Perhaps we could stress staying on topic with the less experienced G2G members…..And the newbies deserve an answer that’s encouraging……. Far too often newbies receive curt answers from a member who’s heard that same question once too often.

I recommend providing a document for general distribution with very SHORT bullet point guidance for WikiTree members, telling what to do and minimize the “what not to do” (Try for Guidance more than rules):

You probably can’t leave out: No politics, No religion, No personal attacks, Don’t be grumpy

But perhaps add: Be professional, Be helpful, Support answers with facts, Be precise, Respect privacy, Be the teacher. Know when you’ve gone too far.

I’ve already seen some pretty funny posts by WikiTree members, trying to get these types of messages across with humor.

Thanks for the discussion!

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Peggy McReynolds Owl (504k points)

You can't legislate [put in any number of things here including morality, common sense, good judgment, emotions, emotional reactions, cultural norms, humor, political correctness, lack of controversy etc.]. WikiTree is a global community made up of people from many different cultures, languages, backgrounds, personalities and levels of technical ability. Even if you could come up with rules to cover a lot of what triggers reactions from some part of the membership, it would be too complex to remember or apply.

These specific rules do not add anything useful that isn't already covered by the honor code.

In my opinion gentle reminders to be nice and reread the honor code would do more for fostering improved relations in communications than the rules would do. I think they will serve as yet another trigger for discord.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Mary Jensen Owl (143k points)

Precis som Margreet Beers uttrycker längre upp i den här tråden (utan att fått någon kommentar alls på sin post) så är det som så att en del länder runtom i världen har ett ganska direkt sätt som vid översättning kan misstolkas som oartigt .

Jag håller med om hennes påpekande att de flesta med engelska som förstaspråk inte verkar ha en aning om hur mycket extra tid och energi det tar för oss att skriva på ett språk man kanske inte använder dagligen. Att förstå vad som står på engelska när man skapar profiler etc är förmodligen inte något större problem men att skriva på ett annat språk är annorlunda. Och när man väl har skrivit sitt meddelande måste man även läsa igenom det för att se om det är förståeligt och sedan om det är "tillräckligt artigt" för att platsa i forumet.

Så istället för att vara oss själva, lite väl direkta i framtoningen ibland (precis som holländare tydligen), försöker vi anpassa oss och jag kan personligen säga att det ibland inte är lönt besväret att svara eller ge sin åsikt när jag inte kan svara spontant utan att granska mitt svar både en och två gånger, kanske till och med tre gånger, vilket innebär att jag ibland helt enkelt struntar i att svara alls.

Är det den sortens forum ni verkligen vill ha? Det är skillnad på att med uppsåt att ställa till med bråk och att vara sig själv, måhända från en annan kultur än majoriteten på forumet.

Det här inlägget till exempel, har jag faktiskt inte orkat med att översätta, och för att använda ett engelskt ord som inte har något bra svensk motsvarighet, inte heller adderat någon "sugarcoat" till. Blir det något fel i översättningen så går det med andra ord att skylla på google translate (eller vad man nu använder för översättningsverktyg om man verkligen är intresserad av vad jag har att säga).

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Maggie Andersson Owl (162k points)

Thanks for commenting Eva and Margreet.

I would like to add that I am not trying to go off-topic and that the outspoken friendliness and Honour Code are the reasons I choose WT.

But I would like to make a point that some who are not native English speakers might actually avoid posting on G2G because they do not feel confident to express themselfes "good enough".

And by "good enough" I mean not just choosing the correct words to make yourself understood but also that you have to know how to rephrase something from your original language (which might be direct and even considered blunt if translated word for word) to make the message "politely enough" to be posted on G2G.

So for me, personally, it is hard to vote in the question of the suggested discussion rules. Of course, we should not be rude to each other (and definitely not say exactly what's on our mind) but should we really have to adjust to the point of not being able to express ourselves as we would in our native tongue? Even if the translation might come out a bit blunt to some people and possibly be perceived as not being polite, but that would in most cases never be the intention.

If anything, I would like more members from all over the world posting to G2G even if they think they are not good at English. I would wish that they should not be afraid of spelling, grammar and being "polite enough" but post anyway.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Maggie Andersson Owl (162k points)
edited Jul 1, 2020 by Maggie Andersson

I very much share the feelings of Maggie. Even if I have read and written in English for fifty years, I still often have to google the meaning of a word which a native English speaker is likely to have learnt in kindergarten, before using it.

This is getting particularly painful the times that I've tried to call attention to (I had to google that!) the inherent ethnocentricity of this site, only to be quickly dismissed with a very eloquent reply from an American. That really feels condescending, even if I understand perfectly well that there's no ill will intended.

I don't think the solution is to split up the site into national chapters, as Margaret suggests above, but please please try to understand how hard it can be for non-native Anglospherics to get their meanings across here. It feels like a real handicap.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Leif Biberg Kristensen Owl (366k points)

Maggie, Jelena, Margreet, and Leif--

I can't speak for all WikiTreers, but I, for one, know full well how hard it is for non-native English speakers to communicate in English. When I see posts from someone who is obviously speaking in what is for them a foreign language, I always take that into account.

It seems to me that it is just a fact of life that this forum must be conducted in English, and the benefit for you is having a larger group of people with whom to discuss your issues.

If you are afraid you might have inadvertently offended someone, why not add a short statement to that effect to your posts?

Of course, I am against the new rules so this is in no way a defense of them. I merely want to give you the reassurance of one WikiTreer that at least some of us understand very well that you make a lot of extra effort to communicate with us. And I for one hope you will continue to do so.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Living Kelts Owl (581k points)

At the risk of being accused of hijacking the thread, I would like to add to Julie's post on foreign language posters... I belong to a genealogy group that is all in French. What I do is use Google Translate and I post in my original language and then in the translated language. That way someone who knows both more fluently than I do can help me out. It is not perfect but we seem to understand each other more often than not.

Swedish:

I risken att anklagas för att ha kapat tråden vill jag lägga till Julies inlägg på främmande affischer ... Jag tillhör en släktforskningsgrupp som alla är på franska. Vad jag gör är att använda Google Translate och jag publicerar på mitt originalspråk och sedan på det översatta språket. På så sätt kan någon som känner både flytande än jag hjälpa mig. Det är inte perfekt men vi verkar förstå varandra oftare än inte.

Dutch:

Met het risico beschuldigd te worden van het kapen van de draad, zou ik willen toevoegen aan Julie's post op posters in vreemde talen ... Ik behoor tot een genealogiegroep die helemaal in het Frans is. Wat ik doe, is Google Translate gebruiken en ik post in mijn oorspronkelijke taal en vervolgens in de vertaalde taal. Op die manier kan iemand die beide vloeiender kent dan ik, mij helpen. Het is niet perfect, maar we lijken elkaar vaker wel dan niet te begrijpen.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Laura Bozzay Golden Owl (1.1m points)

You know, way back in the first post in this thread I made a comment about how educational and informative G2G had been for me. A primary example of that is learning a lot of things I never knew about customs, naming conventions, and historical events in other countries. That comes directly from reading posts by our cousins in other countries, most of whom don't use English as their primary language. It would really be unfortunate if our colleagues of other native languages stopped posting in G2G because they're concerned that they might inadvertently offend somebody. In my opinion, for whatever problem we're solving with this proposal, that would be too high a price to pay and too much collateral damage to sustain. I would certainly hope we don't see that result.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Dennis Barton Owl (631k points)

I thought there were rules enough to begin with. It's all very well to have guidelines, but there will always be people who go overboard, so the real question is how to handle it when it happens. The more we make nitty-gritty, strictly enforced rules, the more we are going to be upset when they're broken. Yes it's right to refrain from hurtful, aggressive or disrespectful language, especially in a space where you don't know the other people that well. But outlawing "rapid responses", discouraging jokes, forbidding three responses in the same conversation... all this to make a more perfect world... all this to oversee & control...

Good ideas are on this rule page, but something isn't right. I doubt very much this will take pressure off the mentors. I also doubt the best way to handle a rude person is to paste a link to the Help:Discussion Rules page.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by C Ryder Owl (95.1k points)

Steve, I had read that. I don't see the level of detail that answers my questions specifically.

Worked out in practice. I wonder who will be the poor guinea pigs who may leave G2G forever, if not WikiTree altogether, while this is being worked out.

Just in case I haven't made myself clear enough: I was truly shocked when I read the proposed rules. And it truly grieves me that so many people are in favor of them.

Aren't we all adults here? Why do we need such a nanny approach to what we discuss? This whole thing reminds me of how, when I was a child, my younger sister went running to my parents every time we had a disagreement, and I always got punished. And yes, I just spoke of a living person! And this is surely more than my third post this hour. So I've nearly reached MIR stage already, just this morning!

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Living Kelts Owl (581k points)

Julie, you were just a bit quicker than I could react, because what I think of this whole discussion is that everybody feels so quick offended or mistreated. We're all grown ups come on, withoit disagreement there will never be growt. Aren't we all raised with that. It's alright to disagree and to discuss this. But stop taking everything so personal. I already know that several members of our DR group stop following the discussions on G2G because sometimes it looks like everyone needs te be treated with 'care'. Grow up everyone and take your own responsibility to be 'human' and sometimes that means that we are direct and want to discuss about things. I agree to disagree, to be able to think about the fact that there are differences.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Mar Beers Owl (286k points)

Julie, based on the link and information provided, I am seeing that you would be notified of each rule violation - "The member posting the message should be directed here for a full explanation." So you would know before (and when) a situation was escalated to an MIR. You will also be notified by a Mentor when the MIR is assigned. And I think you mean Moderators (the ones monitoring G2G) on the "master list" question. The short answer would be yes, that infractions would need to be privately recorded in some fashion.

Also, I want to point out that there is a great part of this proposal and the steps outlined. I know, you probably cringed when I said that - but hear me out... This process also means that you not only have Moderators doing the initial review (I think it is a pretty diverse group we have now), but you also have the chance for an independent and unbiased review from a Mentor if an MIR was filed. Many people see an MIR as "I'm being punished", but this is not always the case.

Aren't we all adults here? Why do we need such a nanny approach to what we discuss?

Part of the problem I think we are seeing here is that many people are picking apart the rules and trying to apply it to themselves to see if they are in "violation" or to see how these rules are going to affect their participation in the future. I think Mindy provided the best explanation so far, so I will use her words here: "If you are actively participating in the G2G, aren't seeing a lot of issues, and haven't had posts hidden by moderators - you most likely will not see any changes after the above help page is created."

The reality is that many members are not seeing what Moderators, Mentors and Mediators are seeing and dealing with. As Chris said: "Mentor Intervention Requests frequently point to G2G posts as Honor Code violations. But pointing to general principles and tips on courtesy is a problem. It leaves Mentors and Mediators struggling to explain exactly why a certain message is inappropriate. And it leaves members feeling like the process is subjective. We want clear and explicit policies so that conflicts can be resolved fairly."

----

In short, if you are not being consistently flagged and hidden now, then there should be no reasonable expectation that you would be with these rules in place.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Steven Harris Owl (956k points)

After reading more responses and a good night's sleep, I haven't changed my position but I think I understand better now. I took particular note of the idea that these are not really new rules, but rather they formalize or codify how WikiTree applies (or should apply) the existing rules in real life. Pip's quote from his professor, that each new law creates a new class of criminal, was quite on point I think. Then there's this statement, from the 'pro' side: 'I will say that I have repeatedly seen responses during mediation saying "point me to a help page that says that."'

I think this new set of rules essentially expands on the one real rule of G2G: "Do nothing to cause anyone to call the manager." All remedial actions at WikiTree come from someone filing a complaint, and all complaints are valid. Therefore, whatever you actually did, your real offense was to generate a complaint. The Discussion Rules Page merely provides a menu of offenses to match any complaint. In other words, it is meant to be the go-to "help page that says that."

Going forward, I will limit my presence on G2G to answering well-posed questions in Genealogy Help and WikiTree Help. If it's an FAQ, I'll leave it for someone else. If the question doesn't have enough info to identify the subject, I'll pass. I will stay out of the Tree House and Policy and Style, except to heap praise upon any proposal from The Team.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Living Tardy Owl (797k points)

It doesn't take being a non-native English speaker to sometimes have problems being understood. Sometimes I read back over e-mails I've sent to friends I've known for years, and taking a fresh look, wonder: Could I have been misunderstood? Was I unintentionally offensive? And those are people I know! Here on G2G, for the most part, we don't know each other. We've never even seen each other. We have differences of culture, gender, history (obviously, even within the U.S.), time zone, personality--so of course our communication styles will be different. That's what I think makes these new rules impossible. Why don't we have one rule only (and we do; actually two): Assume mistakes are unintentional [and] misunderstandings are inevitable. Accept those occasional difficulties as the price of participating in this great forum. Try to work things out as adults and don't go running to the nanny every time your feelings are hurt, which could be entirely unintentional.

Edited by request.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Living Kelts Owl (581k points)
edited Jul 5, 2020 by Living Kelts

Just to help be concise and in one place. I have taken the liberty of rewording some of this because I think tone is everything when dealing with written communication. The fact that there are so many responses says something.

Question 1: What is the purpose of the rules If it is to facilitate discussion on G2G it looks like they are shutting it down. If your intent is to drive us to do direct emails off list you are getting your wish. That is already happening now as a result of this thread.

Question 2: Why do we need more rules than the Honor Code? Doesn't the Honor code cover a lot of this? What specifically does this do that the honor code does not do?

Question 3: What is the magnitude of these issues? 5% or less of the posts? 10% or less? Over 10% Give us some idea why there is a need for something this restrictive.

Suggestions for rewording because I agree with creating a framework for using G2G but not with hard and fast rules that sound like censorship and big brother has taken over. So here are my suggestions:

My advice is take a step back and listen to what the dissenters are actually saying. I think there is middle ground but it will require a major rewording of what is there now.

Nuances are everything. Tone is everything. Right now you have half this country hating Twitter, Google and Facebook for what they see as censorship and the other half asking for more controls. So this is a charged issue because of the general social media environment and the topic of controls. People are really tired of being controlled and most are going to chafe under rules.

Some fast things that might help:

1. Change rules to guidance. Guidance is a softer tone and less in your face. It sounds more like help than policing the site.

2. Accentuate the positive. Say what you want people to post not what you don't want them to post. Then following the positive statements indicate things to avoid with some explanation as to why. The why is missing in a lot of what was posted. It needs to be more transparent like, 20% of G2G posts are off topic. While we encourage you to be yourself and contribute, please watch the number of times you do an off topic post as it fills up our servers with non genealogical items and we are a genealogy focused forum. I think that gets the point across without saying you will be reprimanded if you post off topic which is how the rules are coming off. A side note to this one. Perhaps you create a subdivision for off topic posts. Those can be scrubbed once a year or every two years for more server space. Things like the Weekend Chat, Chats from prior Thons, and off topic subjects (non of which are jumping into my mind right now) could go there and then be scrubbed on a published schedule. I mean it is not unreasonable to say post your genealogy questions under Genealogy help, your Tech questions under Tech and use the Tree House for: define that), etc...

3. Talk about tone. Something like: In our modern social media culture some sites allow in your face type posting. We are geared to family and sharing so that is really not the kind of communication we want to encourage. Please adhere to the Honor Code and only post in respectful language. Treat others as you want to be treated, as our mothers used to say... Sidestep the discussion about condescension, sarcasm etc. that is a minefield. People get the golden rule. It is simple and familiar.

4. Discussion of policies and rules. For some, this seems to be a hot topic that is not easily understood as to how to post an idea for a rule revision or additions. Please do the following: (I have to confess this is not a process I find intuitive so someone who gets it should write it... but maybe before doing that the process itself should be reviewed to make it easier) My suggestion is this: In your subject state either Revision to Existing Policy or Request for New Policy then let people do free form text. Create a new subgroup where we have Tree House, Genealogy Help, Tech, that says Policies. I think that will help a lot.

5. Rapid Response. This seems to really be an issue because there are so many positive reasons to allow for it. I think you are better off defining very clearly what the issue is here. I mean if you look at what we do on challenges and projects answering people that could be construed as rapid response.

Hopefully the above will help. My intent as always is to support but I honestly sat down and cried when I read that draft. I get that people worked hard on it but I think they are too close to their own forest and are not seeing the multiple types of trees....

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Laura Bozzay Golden Owl (1.1m points)

Jetzt schreibe ich noch mal meine Meinung auf zum Thema "nicht mehr als dreimal im gleichen Thread antworten". Ich finde diese Regelung total schlecht. Dafür habe ich mehrere Gründe:

1. Wie andere schon sagten, manchmal hilft man einem anderen und findet mehrere Quellen für eine Person. Dann ist es übersichtlicher, die unterschiedlichen Dokumente in einzelne Postings zu teilen. Und was ist, wenn man dann 5 oder 6 Quellen findet? Darf man die dem Thread-Starter nicht mehr alle zeigen, weil man ja seine 3 Posts schon verbraucht hat? Das ist Schwachsinn!

2. Ich persönlich sage meine Meinung gerne direkt. Im echten Leben wird mir öfter mal gesagt, ich soll nicht so laut und nicht so direkt sein... Dann kommt noch dazu, dass mir häufiger noch mehr Argumente für meine Meinung einfallen. Aber nicht immer direkt am Anfang, sondern wenn ich über etwas länger nachdenke. Diese Argumente will ich dann aber auch in die Diskussion einbringen, und ich will nicht immer mehrere Leute in einer Antwort taggen (müssen). Und dann heißt es plötzlich "Geht nicht, weil du schon dreimal in dem Thread geantwortet hast."? Das ist unfair, weil vielleicht das 4. Argument genau das ist, was die Wünsche/Vision vom Chef und meine persönliche Situation zusammenführt. Und dann? Nein, das geht nicht, diese Beschränkung darf meiner Meinung nach nicht kommen.

3. Andere haben auch schon angesprochen, dass man zwar eine Mitteilung bekommt, wenn jemand in einem Thread antwortet, an dem man beteiligt ist, dass aber *Veränderungen* der Postings danach nicht mehr gemeldet werden. Genau deswegen ist es schlecht, wenn die Anzahl der Antworten in einem Thread eingeschränkt wird. Es ist erstens einfacher, einen Zusatz in einem neuen Posting zu machen. Und zweitens bekommt dann wirklich jeder, der vorher schon am Thread beteiligt war, mit, dass es eine Veränderung gab.

Das war jetzt nochmal mein Senf zu dieser Diskussion.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Jelena Eckstädt Golden Owl (2.0m points)

Steve-

Being a person who speaks my mind on WikiTree, I would not be surprised if I annoyed people once in a while (or more). I don't know for certain how often I get flagged (there is no notification of that) or my posts hidden. As I already mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I've had posts hidden without ever knowing why, and only discovered that by accident. I've also had my posts edited with no explanation. In fact, that is the norm.

Many G2G questions are simple matters of genealogy, or interpretation of DNA, etc. They don't usually get heated and as far as I know, people rarely get offended. It is the debates like this one that I worry about. Surely we must be allowed to express ourselves freely. Or why even post the question?

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Living Kelts Owl (581k points)

I had something that I wanted to say, but out of "fear" that what I was trying to say would be misunderstood, I will withhold my thoughts.

And that is exactly what will happen by having "strict" rules versus having guidelines and the rules that are already in place. I am a person who is not easily offended, believes in courtesy (please and thank you go a long way), and is able to make the choice that if I don't agree with the direction a thread is going...I don't HAVE to read every comment on it.

I guess what I am getting to is that the majority of us already follow the rules and guidelines already in place. Why not make it a requirement to read and agree to those in order to be able to post or comment on G2G for non members as well.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Angelyn Murphy G2G-5 (5.8k points)

Julie K wrote: "it truly grieves me that so many people are in favor of [the proposed discussion rules]."

I'm tracking responses and support/lack of support. Here's the numbers so far, to the best of my ability:

In support of the discussion rules as drafted by Chris: 15 (of whom 7 are Leaders).(*)

Opposed to the discussion rules: 33 (of whom 4 are Leaders).(*)

Partial agreement about the rules: 9

I've also tracked numbers for the individual items (there is overlap of names between the above and the following, and across each of the following):

Expressed concern about:

No off-topic: 15
No personal attacks: 3
No rapid response: 24
No venting: 9
No ridicule, sarcasm: 15
No discussion of living people: 8

(*) Note: 52 people with the Leader badge (some of whom are also Team members) have not voiced an opinion as of this post.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Jillaine Smith Golden Owl (1.1m points)

I'm feeling chilled already. I've spent several minutes now trying to determine the difference between an answer and a comment, and trying to determine which, where, and how many of them I should make. Seems like a comment would be only in response to the most recent answer, but on closer examination there were no answers to Chris's original proposed topic for discussion, except the answers Chris provided, until people got tired of commenting on Chris's proposed answers and began writing their own answers. Gawd, I'm getting afraid to use pronouns. Is Chris a he, a she, a they? If I write "gawd" do I offend someone's religious sensibilities? If so, did I introduce religion into the conversation?

I thought about where to answer (er... comment) way too long before starting, for fear of breaking a rule not yet written. I decided to follow Chris's instruction to "upvote and comment" on one or more of his proposed answers. I get how that will help Chris organize and count votes, but man-o-man, these threads get long and I could write an essay opposing every single proposed new rule. I won't. I promise. But I might upvote some other answers and/or throw in a few attaboy comments for the ones I especially I liked. I know, I know. I am already breaking the proposed rule against off-topic responses, and several other proposed rules, and might break still more. Attaboys? Sigh. I'll try to refrain. Besides, that informal but useful slang word is probably a gender-insensitive in today's climate. If someone were to suggest I cancel the word, would that person have started a forbidden political dialogue, or would I have done it? And one more thing about the problem of staying on topic: how small is a topic? I pity anyone who has to decide.

I like the Honor Code very much and think it is enough. It explains our unifying project and its purpose and asks us to pledge to conduct ourselves in a manner that we believe will constructively promote and protect this community, our project, and its goals. That covers everything. More laws don't necessarily lead to better governance.

Here's one specific example of how the system we already have in place can be good enough. Not too many weeks ago I made my first comment ever on one of these forums. Someone brought up a topic for discussion, something like do we have the same naming conventions that discourage using suffixes such as Sr., Jr., I, II, III etc. when working within a special project as we do for Wikitree in general. The first person to respond (not me) made no attempt to answer, but roundly criticized the asking of the question in that forum and by extension in my view was personally criticizing the motives of the person who had asked it and suggesting it ought to be taken it up elsewhere. Now, I am new here and knew none of the people involved or the protocols, but this question happened to be one I wanted to know the answer to also. I felt annoyed at the person who had made no effort to answer, but did try to shoot down the question. I flagged the comment and wrote my first-ever comment. I started off my comment with the words "Snotty tone, [Username]." The poster of the question wrote to me and was very kind, pointing out that she would not have flagged the comment herself, even though it was directed at her, and asked me to consider removing my comment, which I did. Incidentally I would not have flagged it if it had been directed at me either, had I asked the question. The comment was not wholly outrageous; it was merely non-responsive, with an unpleasant whiff of ad hominem attack. Had it been directed at me, I might have felt taken aback and aggressively targeted. Also, I know this about myself: I have a tendency to defend others by leaping into offense mode when someone or a group of people appears to be shutting down free discourse, trying to direct or silence the voices of others. I'm doing a version of that here, right? But I'm not annoyed today. I was grumpy that day, though, must have had a case of the covid blues. That's another rule I would be breaking if I ever post anything while slightly out of sorts again or don't count out one hour before making a followup comment.

My experience taught me some good things about this group: 1) The person whom I was defending 99% did not need my assistance, and in fact, I needed hers; 2) This group is impressively self-regulating and higher functioning than most; 3) The person I accused of having a snotty tone was in the U.K. and I am in the U.S. I did not know that before I wrote, but I am very familiar with those two particular cultural differences and likely would have felt more curious than annoyed had I known; 4) My own tone was plenty snotty too, which I knew at the time, though in my own nit-picky defense I was calling out not mainly the tone but the failure to respond to the question, which made the comment off-topic by definition; 5) Wikitree probably has something of benefit to offer to everyone who participates at any level, and vice versa, and I deeply admire how much work so many people put into it, and; 6) Wikitree's software must have been created by code-writing geniuses with a passion for genealogy. I'm extremely impressed with what it can do and with its potential. I expect it will just keep getting better. I'm not going to quit using it unless it gets hijacked by thought police, but even then I may use it for the social, historical, and documentary purpose for which it is intended unless that becomes impossible, which would be a big loss, or gets stalled by lack of participation or other resources.

But, I may never feel free to post first-person accounts or stories to my profile or others, or post my thoughts about why available or unavailable evidence on a person's bio and source sections could open questions about whether x, y, or z occurred and ask for information to prove or disprove such theories. If folks here are too thin skinned a descendant of an ancestor an image influencer might take exception. I am not sensitive that way myself. Just give me the facts, ma'am. Even if they turn out to be unpleasant or controversial, or the result of tragic events that weren't exactly caused by force majeure, we need to acknowledge human history and human nature and accept that our one big family tree has not always been a happy one. So far here on Wikitree though, I have been a happy camper and see a lot of value. I'm glad I came.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Nancy Crawford G2G-1 (1.5k points)

@Ronald; If you edit your original answer or comment in a thread you will see a check box for "send me mail for every new answer" (not exact wording) that you can uncheck.

@ Dennis; You wrote "It would really be unfortunate if our colleagues of other native languages stopped posting in G2G because they're concerned that they might inadvertently offend somebody."

It is very nice of you to express that but I can say that it is already too late, many Scandinavian members have already stopped using the forum, or limited their usage of G2G to only ask if they have a specific question that can not be misunderstood, like "need reading help of record xxx".

And taking discussions off the forum and sending pm instead does just hide any problems with members. I have actually been called a racist when I pointed out to someone that it might be "an American way" to see something. And that was a discussion about middle names usage on a Swedish profile (no middle names used in Sweden until modern times).

commented Jul 2, 2020 by Maggie Andersson Owl (162k points)
edited Jul 2, 2020 by Maggie Andersson

Maggie,

I can confirm that this is the case for a lot of our Dutch members to. Sometimes there's more than only the American way and I still think that if you want to built a world wide tree at least the forum must also be 'open' for discussion. I still remember the remarks about the GDPR, as if we members had come up with that law. I don't judge your laws (and I do have a problem with them), so don't judge us.

I once asked a question on the forum what the fun was of Challenges of always the same team wins with such a high score that it almost seams impossible, well I almost got 'lynched'. Let's just try to be open and transparant about our own behavior and be polite, but don't patronize or restrict people from participating.

commented Jul 2, 2020 by Mar Beers Owl (286k points)

@Maggie, Margreet, other participants whose native language is other than English: I said it would be "unfortunate" if you folks stopped posting here, and used the word unfortunate just so I don't come across as too over-reactionary to all this. But honestly, I think it's a lot worse than unfortunate. The non-American way and perspective on things is exactly what you folks bring to this activity. I agree, how could we possibly develop a single worldwide tree without that? I just can't imagine how anyone could be offended to a reference to "an American way," but if someone is, they are the problem. I would certainly hope that this discussion rules proposal is not meant to target comments made in the forum by speakers of languages other than English. If it is, we are really on a downward course here, and I would appeal to Chris or Eowyn or any other leaders that are still plowing through this thread -- don't let it happen! Encourage more participation of such members, not less.

commented Jul 2, 2020 by Dennis Barton Owl (631k points)

@Dennis -- Of course we want our non-American members to participate. Of course!

I was really disheartened to hear the comments of Maggie, Margreet and others that they feel they can't voice their opinions or viewpoints here. I encourage them to do so, and I would hope that they would bring any negative comments they receive to the attention of the Team and Leaders. I would also hope that other community members who witness anything like that would speak up.

I know it must take a lot of courage to get your words out here in a language you don't feel completely 100% comfortable with. I would sound like a toddler if I tried to speak or write any of your languages.

Please don't let the few intolerant people discourage you from speaking up.

In my ideal world, our community should support you and help you to feel that it doesn't matter whether or not you get a word or two wrong.

I, personally, am willing to help any of you if you want help making sure your viewpoint is understood.

commented Jul 2, 2020 by Julie Ricketts Owl (551k points)
edited Jul 3, 2020 by Julie Ricketts

Julie, I'll go through it again and try to cite some specifics later today, but I'm going to have to take a "real-life" break for a while. I think one problem is the general overall tone of it, which comes across to me as more hard-nosed than the typical Chris proposal. When you say things like this is strict, and goes beyond cultural norms, and we anticipate a lot of violations, how are we to take that? We are asked to flag any perceived violations for moderator attention, and we demand an apology for any inadvertent rule violations. It tells me big brother is watching my every move, and I'd better walk on egg-shells if I plan to participate in G2G (to use somebody else's earlier analogy). Perhaps the tone doesn't concern you or others (I said the perception is in my simple mind, FWIW. :)), but for me it has that chilling effect alluded to in the original post.

I also feel a little handicapped here because I've spent so much time on this specific thread that I haven't had a chance to really look over all the comments of the 'For' voters and those who responded to each of the individual proposals. I'm sure there are some good points there as well, so I'd like to peruse all that before I commit to specifics. More later, hopefully today.

commented Jul 2, 2020 by Dennis Barton Owl (631k points)

This is where I see intolerance built into the Discussion Rules. The page acknowledges differences in culture, language, and personal style, but makes no allowance for them. The system as it exists and as furthered by these rules is inherently one-sided. If someone complains about something you wrote, you have 'made a mistake,' and must pay the price. There is no option to confront your accuser, or even to know his or her identity. It might be the 'offended' party, or a moderator, or a third party offended on behalf of someone else. It makes no difference whether there is a reasonable, rational basis for taking offense. It makes no difference whether the 'mistake' resulted from cultural or language differences. "These rules are strict." Someone complained. Case closed.

One can reasonably expect that non-native speakers of English will take the brunt of this one-sidedness, simply because they have a larger number of possible accusers. The rules may be equally intolerant of everyone, but some members will definitely experience it more than others.

Along the same lines, as another member noted, restrictive forum rules frequently become a club with which to bludgeon other members. A member who becomes personally unpopular can expect a lot of complaints for 'making mistakes.'.

Watch your back, everyone.

commented Jul 2, 2020 by Living Tardy Owl (797k points)

I don't think these rules are necessary, but after reading a couple days of responses, I don't think I will abandon the forum. I intend to continue posting as I have been. If it ends up that disagreement - civil but pointed - ends up being disciplined then I will rethink. I am recalling a thread recently where "niceness" and "friendliness" of responses seemed to be being favored over those advocating for rigorous family history. If that ends being the trend, I will also rethink. FWIW in my experience moderating, the specificity of the rules may come back to bite you. Humans are ingenious, and will find ways to argue that what they are posting falls between the cracks. Simple, general principles ("Don't be a jerk" is a good one) with wise, experienced moderators is all in my experience that is necessary. Someone who needs "don't be a jerk" defined to the Nth degree is probably at high risk of being one. JMO.

ETA - And, of course, thanks to the moderators for their efforts and to those who do take some time to think about tone as well as content when they post.

commented Jul 2, 2020 by Ellen Curnes Owl (89.2k points)
edited Jul 2, 2020 by Ellen Curnes

@Julie, I still owe you one reply from earlier today when you asked me to cite specific examples. I have now at least skimmed this entire "War and Peace" volume (my hat is off to anyone who read it all word for word!). And what I find here is all of us reading the same words in a proposal, but seeing a wide spectrum of different interpretations of what the words mean and how the phrasing should be interpreted. So I think it's pointless for me to try to cite any specific examples, because your interpretation of the examples will differ from mine and we'll just engage in an endless progression of point-counterpoint. I also see what I'd consider a fairly significant volume of negative reaction to the proposal. (It's interesting that the negative reactions are divided into half a dozen different buckets.) Yes, most of that reaction is from us clueless members who use G2G and don't see or understand the problem that is being solved by this proposal. But nevertheless, we now seem to have a standoff between unidentified complainers, at least some of whom are non-participants in G2G and dislike the way some of us behave, against active participants in G2G who think this is a much too heavy-handed approach that's unnecessary. There's probably no happy middle ground, and so, the choice of who is to be alienated shall be made. And finally, since anyone who cares will probably be able to figure out my opinion, I'll join the others in withdrawing from this discussion before you have to tell me to.

commented Jul 2, 2020 by Dennis Barton Owl (631k points)

Why I can not post an ANSWER but just a comment?

Hi all,

Thank you for starting this discussion. I am Dutch so fasten your seatbells as we are known for being - comparing to the Americans - kind of direct. I am not very direct but will be now.

But first I like to state I hate all these discussions. As it is waisting the time I have in my life. BUT: I hate that a sharing page of Q&A will be censored.

As said I am far from seeing things black and white. I hardly reply on these kind of discussions as I think rules are already clear at WT.

Once you joined WT you abide the honor code. If you do that, the way you are supposed to do/behave by abiding it IS set. All RULES ARE IN THAT! Obvious many do not.

Let's stay strickt. Why the need to stay friendly to people that do not want to the rules at Honor Code and are rude? They re here to disturb or they did not read the Honor Code. Besides not reading I think we have too many princes and princesses in this world that think they earn and know all.

Is WT still in such an urge to get members?????? As Greeter at WT are welcoming many under strickt orders and they will be followed for several weeks.

But started here: They are being offered help in a kind way and not taken, if not taken: DELETE

1. If you do not source and someone is asking friendly to do and offer help and it is not taken. DONE! OUT!

2.Mistakes are unintentional. Talk! Communicate. Email and messages are poor communication. I am sure all take that in account. But if you are not able to solve after one or two efforts: DELETE

2002.1 Stay friendly. Work things out. If not possible: DELETE!

You all: The problem here lies in new or no members. Members will suffer on new rules. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?

I am tired of new rules. WT rules sofar are just fine. If someone doesn't understand you can explain or ask me explain. I was dumb on genealogy as I started here, accepted help.

I do love to help new members out or keel to keel them. Mentors I know what difficult task you re facing. I've been there. Just stay to the honor code and leave us to feel free to post anything at G2G.

I think we need a free debatable G2G without restrictions.

My opinion: WT will keel itselves by too many rules. Stay too original rules as they are loud and clear.

Thank you all.

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Astrid Spaargaren Owl (309k points)

I join you in the risk of sidetracking

About voting behavior, I think you should also consider that it concerns a wide spectrum of members. The part of the spectrum, which can be a large percentage, are the ones who don't vote for any reason. Furthermore, on the one extreme, the "Worshipers" who shamelessly cry Amazing whatever the leaders do and vote in favor; on the other extreme, the dissidents who always comment, rightly or wrongly. Those who remain are usually nuanced, try to look at it objectively, think along and express their opinion. It is important that the questioner (s) not only looks at the number of votes, but also objectively looks at the arguments pro or contra and draws conclusions from them. Keeping in mind that someone else may be right.

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Joop van Belzen Owl (171k points)
edited Jul 3, 2020 by Joop van Belzen

I am one of those who do not see a need for an extra page with rules added. Be kind to each other, do not intentionally provoke and don't always say what's on your mind should be enough among adults.

I still have not voted on this suggestion as I need some time to think about it.

When I signed the honour code I agreed to be courteous and never for a moment did I think that the G2G forum was an exception of that.

If anything needs to be clarified, why not add to the Honour Code about it? Something along the lines of "If we choose to participate in the G2G (Genalogist to Genealogist) forum, the same Courtesy rules apply as everywhere else on WikiTree. The purpose of G2G is to discuss genealogy related subjects. It is not a place to post your opinions on controversion topics (politics and religion being two examples). "

If the problem that has actualised this suggestion originate from those who post in G2G but are not members of WT, then perhaps it would be better to review those posts before they are being posted. That would also eliminate the spammers.

And, while I understand the need for moderators to have something backing them up, and that the rules may not be meant to reduce the general G2G postings, have you considered that implementing these rules, as is suggested, might actually cause a reduction of the number of posts to the forum?? (Because if we have rules they really should apply to everyone and not only to those who misbehaving.)

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Maggie Andersson Owl (162k points)

I have not posted here since the other day, much as I may have felt the urge, but now I feel I must.

So, at the risk of being chastised, or disciplined, I feel I have to ask -- is the goal of these new rules to drive people to look over their virtual shoulders watching for the hammer to fall on them if they so much as say one wrong thing? Is it to drive people into apologising for their every word, even before these rules are implemented? Is it to drive away all except the few?

Because that is what is already happening.

Good, solid, loyal, Wikitreers are being "punished" for speaking their thoughts. Good, solid, loyal Wikitreers are feeling as though their every word is likely to offend, and, therefore, get them into trouble, so they are apologising in advance in case they may offend someone. Good, solid, loyal Wikitreers are leaving. Not just not posting; they are leaving.

Is this truly what is wanted? Why the heavy hand? It doesn't help anything. It just drives people to either see how they can get around the rules (rules lawyering is quite a thing in some areas of the internet), or they simply throw up their virtual hands and say "I'm done, there's more to life than this".

I can tell you with some 16 years of experience that, if anyone left here before now because of things said/done by a few — very few of them, if any at all, will ever return, no matter how hard you crack down on those who remain here. There are many people in this world who like to complain about everything, no matter how much is done to appease them; and they do very little to nothing at all. There are also far fewer in number people who may complain and rant and moan, but under it all they knuckle down and get the job done. I know which I would prefer to be around.

As with other non-Americans -- I apologise in advance if I have said anything in such a way that it has caused offense. That was not, and never is, my intent. I truly want to know what is to be done about the people who are leaving because certain people with power over others are exercising that power in a way that is felt to be unfairly.

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Melanie Paul Owl (495k points)

"When people come to G2G and see complaints about how terrible WikiTree is, how terrible X project is, how terrible newbies are at sourcing, etc., they aren't left with the impression that WikiTree is a friendly place...."

With respect, WikiTree is a crowdsourced genealogy/family history site. That is its mission. That is its purpose. "Friendliness" is not. To reach its potential, this site requires honest give and take, and what some perceive as "complaints" may just be the valid, civil disagreement that is the lifeblood of a wiki. If some people don't have the stomach for that, then they don't. I sincerely do not understand the aspiration to appeal to all people. It is doomed to fail, but at this point, TPTB will do what TPTB want. As I've said, based on my experience moderating other public forums I think they may find the detail of the proposed rules actually gives the moderators less flexibility than more, but its up to them. I don't see the benefit of hypothesizing what possible visitors to the forum will or won't think, but if one of the costs is losing an actual member of Dale's caliber, it's been a very expensive exercise. For me, I will continue to toil away along my quiet branches.

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Ellen Curnes Owl (89.2k points)
edited Jul 3, 2020 by Ellen Curnes

@Jamie, about constructive feedback... is OK..

Yes, but sometimes they don't listen to constructively intended feedback on how to improve WikiTree and it takes years of discussion to admit it. For example, the Middle name issue. When I joined WikiTree (2015), there had been a discussion about the Middle Name for some time, maybe years. In the following 5 years, reports and later banners with warnings about multiple names appeared in the PFN field. Despite or thanks to the discussion, it seemed to me deliberate, felt like a bit of bullying .... The protests swelled up, even from non-Dutch people, and people finally gave in. With a subtly accusing finger to the Dutch I quote:

1.) As some of you may have noticed (especially you Dutch WikiTreers) we no longer give a cautionary warning when saving changes

This remark by the top boss of WikiTree comes across as stigmatizing, for us Dutch. You cannot address all Dutch WikiTree members for the battle for recognition that has been waged by a few persistent members. We did not respond to it, were already happy that we finally got rid of those annoying reports. So we didn't dare ....

Then I am not surprised that that some people, after all these years of holding back, sometimes react irritated.

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Joop van Belzen Owl (171k points)

Jamie, IMO we have to be allowed to voice our opinion, and not only to voice it once or twice, but maybe three times or six times, if a discussion develops that way that new aspects are brought in. I really think that WikiTree as itself and not only G2G will lose huge input if these rules are implemented. Because people will not only stop being in G2G, they will cease their participation in the Tree as well.

A little byway to explain why I say what I say in the next paragraph: There was a moment when I wondered about something here: Chris asked for our opinions about the new layout for the profiles. IIRC, there were a lot of people saying: "I don't like that/I don't want that huge part above the genealogical information/what is the surname section for, I don't need that" But, about 2 months later, when nobody thought anymore about the layout, it was just introduced the way Chris had proposed it. There was (at least for me not perceivable) absolutely nothing that was added from the critics we had voiced about it.

So here we are, Chris on behalf of the Team is again "proposing" something that will change A LOT here on WikiTree, not only on G2G, because active users may reduce their time here or leave it altogether. I really wonder about if the concerns of MANY users (this thread is seemingly a mile long in the meanwhile and it will get even longer I'm sure) are actually taken into consideration. I actually thought when I saw that thread: "Why is he asking at all? He will do what he wants anyway." I'm not sure that I will stay as active as I am on G2G if I have the feeling to have to apologize for every time someone misunderstood something I typed.

Those are my next 2 cents about it.

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Jelena Eckstädt Golden Owl (2.0m points)

In response to Jamie,

I was struck by the things that you highlighted: "When people come to G2G and see complaints about how terrible WikiTree is, how terrible X project is, how terrible newbies are at sourcing, etc., they aren't left with the impression that WikiTree is a very friendly place." This seems more like a concern with the image WikiTree projects to the "outside" world rather than a problem of individual members being discourteous to each other. In response to the next line: "And if they see that some of the people constantly complaining about everything are very active members, why would they want to participate in a community like that?" I would say that the fact that members continue to slog way in spite of things they are unhappy with does say something positive anyway.

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Colleen Vachuska Owl (69.0k points)

Ros Haywood I love working with you. Yes there are times when your answers are short and to the point. That is your writing style. It does not make you mean or snotty.

We don't always agree. And that is OK because I still love working with you on all manner of topics.

I just want to say I hope WikiTree does not lose you. You are a font of information and a hard worker who does more behind the scenes than in the limelight.

I am glad I met you here and got to know you and your outstanding work ethic.

This is exactly why my first post said I read this and cried. I immediately understood what was going to happen and why.

The people driving this idea need to stop and take a step back before we all quit.   Many have had it and emails are flying off WT that people are leaving.   You say that is not your intent but it would appear people are not believing that. because you say this is for the good of the site but people on the site are saying we disagree.

Take a hard look at your responses or lack there of to questions about the why, the frequency, and trying to understand where this heavy hammer is coming from.

Those of us with years of moderating experience have all said the same thing, over and over but you do not seem to be listening.

We are not your enemies we are trying to get you to see this in a different light. Please, Please, Please... stop this.. It is not good for you or for this site.

I was not going to post again. I said what I felt I needed to but after seeing this post from Ros, the one from Dale, the one from Herb, Dennis, the one from Jelena, Astrid, and several of the Dutch contingent .. I had to say... please, stop and understand you are telling us you do not trust us to behave. You do no think we know what is going on.   But perhaps our view is that you do not trust us or understand what we want you to do and not do in terms of moderating the site.   Right now I really feel like more damage is being done. Please. stop.    I promise I will not post again no matter what is said.

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Laura Bozzay Golden Owl (1.1m points)

The use of the word "accidental violation" translates really stupid because when you do a translation it is not accidental. That is the way it translates especially with these translation programs. The meaning interpreted or grade of politeness towards native English speakers is unintentional. This does not deserve a "black mark".

There is nothing in the process the "black marks" are applied to an offender to rehabilitate, except for the threat that your account will be closed. The black marks are permanently recorded so that it can be used against you even thirty years in the future. The way I see it, members are passionate about the genealogy they contribute to WikiTree and if you do not want to jeopardize that, you cannot operate in WikiTree without having two accounts, one for Genealogy and one fake one for G2G

However, I see these "rules" as descriptive of what it means to be polite in general elsewhere on the web. The problem is that what is polite in one culture is considered rude in another and in my experience mentors show a total disregard for any other culture and are biased by applying only their own subjective views of what is not polite speech.

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Louis Heyman Owl (112k points)

@Ellen

While being a friendly place may not be written down in the mission statement, we definitely want people to have a good experience when they use the site. These proposed rules aren't meant to stop valid complaints. They are meant to stop people who are consistently being discourteous (which is against the Honor Code).

@Joop

Just because something takes a while to implement, doesn't mean you aren't being listened to. Many of the other genealogy sites have full-time employees to track feedback, plan out features, program features, test things, etc, while WikiTree has a smattering of part-time contractors. You can't expect things to be implemented as quickly as the big sites, and it's not bullying if we choose to prioritize someone else's complaint over yours. There are things I've suggested years ago that haven't been done, but I realize that there are more important things to work on with the limited man-hours we have. And constantly having to respond to the same complaints again and again uses up some of those limited man-hours.

I also don't see how mentioning that the change is something Dutch users would like is stigmatizing? But it's helpful to point things like this out, so we can word things more carefully in the future.

@Jelena

A lot was changed from what Chris originally proposed and what was ultimately implemented, based on feedback in those posts. Including the ability to completely hide the section from your profile if you don't like it. And there will probably be more adjustments based on feedback in the future. I also don't think people realize the bulk of that change had to do with making the registration process easier.

I also don't see how these rules change much of anything. They all basically say: be courteous and try not to do things that will upset other users. Can this draft of the proposed rules use some rewording and clarification? Of course! That's why it was posted here for feedback.

@Colleen

The problem is, many formerly active members have stopped participating on G2G because it's no longer a fun place for them to participate, because people on G2G are being discourteous.

@Laura

I think people are interpreting the rules differently than they were meant to be interpreted. Which is why they were proposed to the community instead of just implemented, so they can be adjusted and their meaning can be made clear. It's not as heavy of a hammer as you think.

@Louis

I had at least one "black mark" when I was a normal user, and I was still eventually made a Leader and then a Team Member. There are users with over a dozen complaints that are still on the site. We understand occasional slip-ups happen. People aren't going to be kicked off the site because they accidentally went off-topic.

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Jamie Nelson Owl (926k points)

Jamie, you said:

I also don't see how these rules change much of anything. They all basically say: be courteous and try not to do things that will upset other users. Can this draft of the proposed rules use some rewording and clarification? Of course! That's why it was posted here for feedback.

When I read the Honor Code it says:

We try to minimize [misunderstandings] by being courteous to everyone, even those who don't act accordingly.

If I read that correctly, the Honor Code, which is valid for this site longer than I am registered here, says exactly what you say, Now I don't get even more why the Team thinks we need the new "Rules".

Just to be sure about the exact meaning of the word "courteous" I checked it in the Webster dictionary. Ok, my language may not be that "polished" and as I said in an earlier comment, I am rather direct in my approach, but I always (at least try) to stay on topic and not get personal. But according to that respected definition I think that even my approach could be called "courteous". I simply don't get why these rules are needed. And reading other comments I see that I am not the only one who doesn't get it.

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Jelena Eckstädt Golden Owl (2.0m points)

I also don't see . . .

commented by Jamie Nelson

.

Respectfully, perhaps you are a little too close to the forest to see the trees. We, out here, not part of the inner circle, see all those trees.

.

I also don't see how these rules change much of anything. They all basically say: be courteous and try not to do things that will upset other users. Can this draft of the proposed rules use some rewording and clarification? Of course! That's why it was posted here for feedback.

commented by Jamie Nelson

.

Jamie, again respectfully, it changes A LOT, when you read that: "These rules are strict. They go beyond most cultural norms regarding casual conversations." and "Moderators can hide any message that violates one of these rules unless it is edited or apologized for. ", and ". . . alternative to account closure.", and "Do not . . . ", and "Do not . . .", and "Never post more than three responses in the same conversation within one hour", and "If participating on WikiTree makes you unhappy, suspend your participation or close your account", and "Use smiley faces. :-)" (even if doing so feels fake?), and "Do not use ALL CAPS, lots of bold text, or excessive exclamation points." (what if you LIKE exclamation marks? (I do, and have overused them for decades, to the delight AND despair of others (and sometimes I have used them out of impish delight))), and "There is room for humor on WikiTree, but not much. :-)" (well, there goes having fun with friends -- no more aliens holding hands in friendship-kinship -- humour is one of the things that keeps us human, humble, and in rapport with others).

All these things come across as a huge hammer, just waiting to fall, kind of like the "Sword of Damocles". Nobody likes feeling as though doom is ever present.

Another thing that is incredibly worrying is - how are WE, the people, supposed to know what is likely to be in violation of a rule, if the moderators won't know? ("It can be difficult to determine if a message violates a rule.") If those policing the policy don't know, we are sunk.

I also think it is very wrong that people participating in this discussion, at the request(?) (urging?) of Chris Whitten, should be being told to stop posting or else. That is another hammer that is unfairly wielded against those only trying to express themselves.

None of my thoughts, or words, are meant to offend in any way, so I apologise if they do so.

(This, I think, is my third post, and, therefore, time for me to stop posting again.)

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Melanie Paul Owl (495k points)

I've been a user for a fairly long time, and in various roles on WikiTree, so I think I have a more comprehensive view than most. I've been the newbie who didn't source my early profiles and got called out for it, the user unhappy with how something works, the user providing negative feedback about a policy, the subject of a MIR (although I've never filed a MIR, even though I've had a G2G post that including name-calling that was made specifically to attack my leadership of a project), I've been a Leader, a Ranger, had to mediate a few times, been a Team member where a lot of what I do is read G2G, I've talked to many WikiTreers on websites outside of WikiTree and also in person about their experiences with WikiTree, I see the comments that get flagged and hidden, I see the frustrated emails to the team about why someone decided to close their account, etc.

Some of the things you pointed out as major changes were already on the help page for courtesy: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Courtesy. Courtesy was already a requirement, it's just the moderators have been very forgiving in enforcing it on G2G. Most of the time discourteous behavior is let slide unless a MIR is filed by an offended party.

Regarding "how are WE, the people, supposed to know what is likely to be in violation of a rule, if the moderators won't know", how is a little ambiguity in the new rules worse than just relying on point IV of the Honor Code? More specific rules will help users understand what discourteous behaviors they should try to avoid, and it will help moderators know what sort of things they should look out for.

And just for the record, I did not write the rule proposal (although I was part of the discussions about whether or not rules are needed for G2G) and have not yet given my support for the proposal as written. I've been responding to questions about why rules for G2G have been proposed.

commented Jul 3, 2020 by Jamie Nelson Owl (926k points)

I in principle don't agree with adding a Discussion Rules page. because, comparing WT's draft Help:Discussion Rules with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (and Wikipédia Aide:Discussion), I'm stuck to what extent the Discussion Rules are prescriptive.

Adapting the Talk guide, I accordingly suggest the Discussion Rules be re-cast to emphasize less prescriptive practices along the following outline:

Discussion conduct pyramid, in descending order of preference, the top three segment being acceptable:

Address main point
Address the argument
Counter-argumentation
Contradiction
Attack form rather than problem-solve
Ad hominem
Resort to insults.

Key discussion objective elements:

To communicate
To stay on topic
To be positive
To stay objective
To share content
To discuss modifications
To make proposals.

Good discussion practices

Read before commenting
Check whether there's already a discussion on the same topic
Use English
Comment on the question, not on the contributor
Keep the layout clear including in terms of avoiding misplaced over-emphasis
Do not bite new members
Give your opinion as reasoned as possible
Be concise
Centralize discussions.

This would, strictly speaking, in my view, leave only two (of six in draft) prescriptive rules :

No personal criticism
No discussion of living people.

commented Jul 4, 2020 by anonymous
edited Jul 4, 2020

I would like to know who the "Leaders" are? There's all sorts of talk about them posting or not posting, and being responsible for different tasks on G2G and on Wikitree.

Who Are They? I've noticed that Julie Ricketts has responded promptly to many posts, so I have to assume she is a leader (I know her from being a mentor so that was kind of easy). I see Eowyn has also responded, specifically (to mostly one member), and I wonder why that is? I know Eowyn from all around Wikitree, so that's easy too. But who are the rest of the leaders? I saw someone posted there are 52? Who are they and what are their jobs on WIkitree, and why have they always been kept "secret." If they're not secret, where is the page that lists them all with their responsibilities?

I realize this may be considered off-topic, so sorry!

commented Jul 4, 2020 by Lisa Linn Owl (98.5k points)

Regarding "how are WE, the people, supposed to know what is likely to be in violation of a rule, if the moderators won't know", how is a little ambiguity in the new rules worse than just relying on point IV of the Honor Code? More specific rules will help users understand what discourteous behaviors they should try to avoid, and it will help moderators know what sort of things they should look out for.

commented by Jamie Nelson

.

I think it is in that the Honor Code comes across as a friendly agreement, whereas these new proposed rules come across as a threat, a hammer, and extremely UNfriendly. These "specific" rules now whallop, not coax. The more you nitpick and specify rules, the less friendly things are, and the more people will find ways to "lawyer" their way around them (unless they truly believe in the Honor Code, in which case why would new, harsher, rules be needed?) — or they will feel so intimidated they will either stop posting, or leave, or both. This is already happening, just in the few days since this "proposal" was posted. A number of folk have posted saying they feel "chilled" by these rules. Some have said they are leaving (G2G, if not Wikitree altogether). A number of us have stopped helping, stopped posting, and started using other means to communicate.

If the moderators don't know, how is the accidental violator to know, and also know they MUST apologise or edit/remove their post? If they don't know they have violated the rule/s, and the moderators don't know until later, after discussion, and they then decide the poster WAS in violation and determine, then, said poster needs to be reprimanded — it's not so different from Mama Bear telling Baby Bear "just you wait until your father gets home", leaving poor Baby Bear quaking in fear whenever Papa Bear shows up at the door, scared to death over being punished for something Baby no longer remembers doing, or understands was wrong.

Again I intend no offense with my words, so if I do offend, I apologise. (I have been known for using somewhat colourful illustrations of points. I guess it comes with being a Pastor, a Preacher, a teacher of Sunday School (littles AND teens/young adults), and a teacher of Religious Education in Schools (obviously not in any American school). My apologies for mentioning religion. Again, I mean no offense.

commented Jul 4, 2020 by Melanie Paul Owl (495k points)

Well coming from the observation of a former G2G Moderator. This appears like total censorship. While many flagged comments are borderline many times. This is one thing that is very difficult to judge without first being familiar with the persons chat etiquette. Yes, Some people are a bit blunt. But they may have a smiling face behind that monitor. While it's true we turned a blind eye to possibly many questionable things. We always endeavored to assume good intentions. This is our honor code. All these rules IMO will soon make the honor code null when it comes to G2G. G2G is about collaboration and fun. Sorry sometimes we have to say things a bit blunt because these are the guidelines which we all have agreed to follow to the best of our ability. Alas, I would argue that a huge percentage want the best for each profile. Wikitree and G2G need to be fun and encouraging. While there can be fun and encouragement in the midst of some rules this is overboard. Forgive me for being a critic at this point without having a different set of rules to suggest. But it's not like my opinion was asked about wikitree G2G rules. Just rights removed without correspondence. Forgive me I not assuming good intentions with these choices. But I want too. So I gonna hold a little longer on wikitree till I can work on this issue.

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Anthony McCabe Owl (402k points)
edited Jul 5, 2020 by Anthony McCabe

All,

I've decided to return to the Wikitree that I love. The Wikitree where we all help each other where we can, in building up familytrees and making our own history visible. I'm not responding to G2G items ore starting them myself. I just make 2 exceptions. I will respond on items taged with Dutch Roots or start a question in the help section if needed.

I don't think my opinion will change anything in the head and minds of those leading Wikitree, so why bother trying to make WT a better place. I don't think people realise that the people that in fact are placing reactions, do so because they care. I will return to my hobby and help people where I can, in stead of staying here in the G2G section where people are trying to tell me that I can't be who I want to be. I'm 55 years old. I still have a mom and dad and I don't need 'guardians' to tell me how I should behave or excuse myself for being who I am. Good luck to you all and I hope that the Wikitree part that I love will still be there for a long, long time.

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Mar Beers Owl (286k points)

I find it very peculiar that people are quitting G2G based on a proposal that is currently being discussed by the community. I would liken it to selling your home and moving to a new country because someone in the government had proposed a new rule and opened a public discussion period.

It seems to me that some of the comments here are rather pessimistic assumptions that are based on a worst-case-scenario. I'll echo Mindy who commented in antother answer on this page:

If you are actively participating in the G2G, aren't seeing a lot of issues, and haven't had posts hidden by moderators - you most likely will not see any changes after the above help page is created.

If the verbiage of the proposal bothers you I would recommend that you request a modification or rewrite. Abandoning Wikitree based on assumptions is I think rather extreme and premature.

commented Jul 5, 2020 by SJ Baty Golden Owl (1.2m points)

SJ, it was shocking to many of us that the rules were even proposed, especially with an introduction that included: "simple rules that can be objectively enforced, even if it means restricting some legitimate conversations...There is a risk that these rules could have a chilling effect on our community...These rules are strict. They go beyond most cultural norms regarding casual conversations, and conversational norms vary around the world. Therefore, we expect many accidental violations...” [italics are mine]

More shocking is the aggressive defense of the proposal by some, including the use of tactics that foreshadow the rules’ adoption, such as asking people to stop posting and hiding their posts.

Some of us have had posts hidden by moderators. So I guess, then, by your logic, we are the offenders who are going to be weeded out by these new policies. Might as well quit now!

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Living Kelts Owl (581k points)

SJ, et al: I actually agree with you that some of the negative reaction is extreme and premature. But at this point it seems to me that a lot of that is not necessarily a direct result of the words in the proposal. Some of us have raised objections and concerns that we believe are quite legitimate, and they are falling on deaf ears (a figure of speech not meant to insult anyone hearing impaired). So far nobody in a leadership role is listening, and all negative reaction is being blown off. For some of us who are not yet threatening to bail out, it is nevertheless very clear that the climate has changed, regardless of what rules are put in place when all the dust has settled. So we'll each deal with the climate change in our own way, but I honestly don't expect this to be the same comfortable place.

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Dennis Barton Owl (631k points)

Just for the record, other than the comments made on the main post that were hidden because the people missed part of the instructions on how to reply "Please do not comment on this top message. We'll hide comments at the top after they're viewed once.", there have been 3 comments hidden by moderators for being a bit too discourteous (and one of the hidden comments was written by a moderator), some comments were hidden by the author of that comment, and the rest were unnecessary translations of comments into English (we don't post after every English comment to translate it into other languages, and we don't need to do it for non-English language comments). Considering how many comments have been made in this thread, is that too heavy-handed?

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Jamie Nelson Owl (926k points)

Jamie, this is the reason I post so often! Three of my comments on this thread were hidden and one on a different thread referring to this discussion. So I should have the opportunity to explain, because you have referred to me directly.

I did post a comment right after Chris's intro, knowing it would be hidden, in order to request the thread be pinned, which it was. No problem!

Isabelle asked me to remove a translation of her post, and I would have done so but someone else did it before I was even out of bed this morning, before I saw her request. As for the other translation(s) that were hidden, no one asked me to remove them, or told me they were offended. I would certainly have removed them myself had anyone just asked me. I was only trying to be helpful, thinking that most readers probably wouldn't bother to translate the comments, and hoping everyone could be in on the complete discussion.

To all those whose posts I translated, maybe badly (but I did note they were straight from Google Translate): I'm sorry. I meant no offense. Apparently I misunderstood what you were trying to accomplish.

As for being heavy-handed--yes. In a debate like this, I think it is heavy-handed to remove even one comment (except those that were placed where there was warning that they would be read, then hidden).

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Living Kelts Owl (581k points)
edited Jul 5, 2020 by Living Kelts

We won't take another step on this for at least two weeks (about July 15).

Dennis --

I think the above statement in Chris's original post is the key here. Nothing is going to be done about this for at least 10 more days.

There's a lot out here to consider. Unfortunately, some of the concerns have been reiterated several times, concerns that have nothing to do with the proposal have also been added, and all that is just going to complicate interpreting the feedback.

When a policy proposal is made and a deadline for discussion is set, that means no decisions will be made until after that deadline.

Just because the concerns laid out here are not being addressed right here and right now doesn't mean they won't be considered.

Like Eowyn, I'm reading everything. I don't feel the need to respond to it all, especially when that just means people are going to add to the noise by continuing to argue the same point over and over again.

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Julie Ricketts Owl (551k points)

Regarding the 'heavy hand:' Many members have noted here the language and tone of the proposed rules seem heavy-handed, and similar descriptions. The progress of the discussion under this Answer reinforces this perception. We have a regular presence of leaders and Team arguing the points (no less than four just this morning). We have had a moderator tell people, both publicly and privately, to stop posting (a fact Jamie omitted when describing leadership's light touch). A moderator told me publicly and not too subtly to stop posting. A mentor contacted me privately to criticize one of my posts. There is definitely pressure to suppress well-intentioned resistance to this proposal, which to me gives a strong indication of what we can expect once these rules are adopted, whatever their final wording.

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Living Tardy Owl (797k points)

Having learned more about why the proposed rules were put forward, it became clear to me why some believe they are necessary. It is my personal observation that the reasoning behind formulating new guides or rules is not presently as transparent as it might be and in a user driven community some transparency is desirable. (I did not say complete transparency as all communities must have structure and not everyone participates at the same level.)

My personal observation has changed from my first post in this thread. I believe the overall goal of the rules is needed but we may be attacking some persistent gnats with Mjölnir (Thor's hammer). Let's not break WikiTree's legs swatting at gnats, although some of these issues are significant, very significant.

The proposed language is being interpreted negatively. There are many ways to express a thought, idea, guideline or even a rule.

There's a lot of thoughtful input (and over-input from some). Emotions are running high for some and that they feel so passionately about WikiTree is a very good thing. Take some time, let The Team review the feedback, and see if the proposed rules can be re-crafted in a manner that results in fewer viewing them as draconian while achieving the necessary goals. I also believe some of the proposed prohibitions may already be in place under the Acceptable Use Policy (https://www.wikitree.com/about/acceptable-use.html) which I think most forget about. And, I understand that if you are going to set up some G2G guides as a separate thing you need to have the basics in one place.

This matter is complicated and involves more than rule-making. Rules beget rules and it is not possible to define in detail everything that is or will be considered undesirable or I fear more chaos than resolution. This involves Moderators, Mentors and Mediators (at a minimum, and many of these are Leaders) and with most of us being human that means we will always have different interpretations of the same situation. Judgment calls will be required and those are simply a fact of life. The people that volunteer on the Team, as Leaders, as Coordinators, as Mentors and as Mediators generally do a commendable job and they are volunteers. They aren't always going to get it right (I don't always get it right as a Mentor) and let's remember this is a proposal.

commented Jul 5, 2020 by T Stanton Owl (661k points)

What is meant by "Black Marks"? I have never heard of it in relation to WikiTree. What does this have to do with the proposed rules?

commented by Joop van Belzen

.

Pretty much it refers to this : "Violations should be recorded. File a Mentor Intervention Request (MIR) on the third violation. Escalate to mediation on the third MIR."

A "black mark" is a demerit, a "down vote" (but way more serious than any downvote ever could be). A "black mark" is a negative point added to you that seems to never go away.

It looks to be based on the American idea of "three strikes and you're out" (from baseball terminology), except that the first three strikes takes you further into the "black mark" area, where - if you go all the way with, presumably 9, black marks, you end up with "account closure".

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Melanie Paul Owl (495k points)

I don't agree with these black marks to stay for your whole "WikiTree-life". They should vanish at least after a period of "good conduct", however this will be defined. (I still think the Honor Code is guideline enough, but I believe that some kind of "Thor's Hammer Rules" will be implemented.) Let me explain why: In a forum I was member of, such a "black mark-system" was implemented and yeah, there was folks that was collecting marks. But some improved and didn't get marks for quite a time. And then came a little backslip, not THAT bad, but worth a "minor mark", and those people who had improved for a long time, were banned for good. And THIS happened only because these "black marks" were not deleted. Yes sure, they should have improved earlier, whatever, I heard all those arguments before, don't want to read them again.... But this experience is exactly why these marks should be deleted after a while.

I am sure you mentors already have a system to recognize if a user needs help. You don't need those marks! And if you don't have such a system, there might be other possibilities to build such a system than these "black marks".

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Jelena Eckstädt Golden Owl (2.0m points)

To Eowyn, Julie R. and any other leaders I may have offended with that earlier post, let me say that I do apologize for that, such was not my intent. Actually it's very encouraging to know that you are following this thread and considering these comments. My only feeble excuse for saying what I said is that we can only evaluate and react to what we see here, not the unstated impressions of other readers. I know Chris said take your time with this, he's not going to do anything until mid-month. But in light of the responses the post has received, it's hard for me to understand why you would let this go on for another week or two without at least some minimal damage control. I doubt if any of us expect you to endorse our position, but if you read through the comments that leaders have added here, I don't think you can find very much empathy for the objections and concerns that have been stated, or much in the way of acknowledgement that there may be a few valid points. And I shall now reinstall my muzzle.

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Dennis Barton Owl (631k points)

Julie R.,

Sure, Chris hasn't had a chance to review everything yet. And of course, not everyone who might like to comment has done so. And, yes, some of us have commented in a disproportionate manner, for reasons we have explained.

But don't you see, in light of the hundreds of comments made to this proposal, that it needs to be revised? Do you really need all those people who haven't viewed the entire thread yet to wade through it? Why not take a break (as you asked me to do!), and revise the proposal?

In my opinion, this is a debate between those who want G2G to be a kindergarten, with everyone being disciplined to "be nice," and an honest exchange between adults who can live with some frank exchanges.

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Living Kelts Owl (581k points)
reshown Jul 5, 2020 by Isabelle Martin

Jelena -

I'm sorry that you had a bad experience on another forum, but that experience isn't relevant to what we're discussing here.

Julie, your response hurts. It shows me that you as part of the Leaders don't take our concerns seriously.

Again, I experienced a system with "black marks" that were not deleted after a certain time of good behavior, which eventually led to the banning of good contributors, because they slightly slipped away later.

But, instead of trying to learn from the user's experiences, both as users and admins, you give the impression to understand our concerns, but actually only want to push through Chris' proposal.

This is my personal impression, it may not be this way, but I perceive it that way.

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Jelena Eckstädt Golden Owl (2.0m points)

I think that there should also be a rule for the flaggers - those over sensitive, easily offended members who flag without due consideration or "proper research" a post.

I believe this is something being worked on already. It has been noted that there may be confusion on what exactly "flagging" a post does. If I remember correctly, I think there is a pending enhancement to change "flag" to "report" post" or something of that nature.

This clearly makes a discussion of how, when and for how long these violations (or black marks as I call them) are recorded on topic.

Louis, I do agree that this is something that will need to be figured out eventually - but please remember that this post is still in the draft phase and "has to be worked out in practice". There are already processes established for Mentoring and Mediations which seem to be working out, so expanding on those may be a great place to start.

commented Jul 6, 2020 by Steven Harris Owl (956k points)

Steve, you say "There are already processes established for Mentoring and Mediations which seem to be working out," but with all due respect, I think that if that opinion were universally held, you would not see such distrust exhibited on this thread.

Above, Steve Schmidt commented that "we was still encouraged to file MIR for questionable comments regardless of ability to 'hide' comments."

My questions to you, which I hope you can answer based on your insights as a Leader and Moderator, are: Are people always notified when they have had MIRs filed against them? (Because Steve S.'s comment suggests that those of us who have had posts hidden may have been filed against.) And are those of us who have been put onto some list kept informed of our status?

commented Jul 6, 2020 by Living Kelts Owl (581k points)

Julie, when an MIR is filed it is reviewed by Mentor Leaders who then assign it to a Mentor who then contacts the person. No cloaks, no daggers, no black ops. There are situations where an MIR is so obviously filed for nefarious reasons that the Mentor leaders do not proceed with it. You would be wrong to assume that all Mentor Intervention Requests are negative in nature. Many of them are not. Many of them are simply one member working to get another member assistance they may need or are not aware is available. The assumption that everything Mentors do is related to negative activity is simply wrong.

Unless there is some very unusual process of which I am unaware someone who has had an MIR filed is always contacted as part of the process. Again, there are no "dark ops" in the world of MIRs.

commented Jul 6, 2020 by T Stanton Owl (661k points)

@Julie K, about the "distrust exhibited on this thread", I think there are multiple items at play here and I am not sure they are entirely centered around this proposal. While there have been many valid comments and suggestions, there is still a lot of misinformation being presented based on personal interpretations of the rules (many of which are not intended). In a few cases, instead of asking for clarification or trying to help with wording, many are just saying "this is trash and will kill collaboration". This starts to spin out of control...

Discussions like this always lead me back to the old phrase, "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." For example, instead of saying "... would eliminate XXX discussions." (statement of fact based on personal interpretation) would it be easier to ask "Is the rule on ... intended to eliminate discussions on XXX, or how we can clarify this in the proposed wording?" This also comes back

Are people always notified when they have had MIRs filed against them?

T Stanton provided a great response to this above. I don't think I have anything to add at this time.

(Because Steve S.'s comment suggests that those of us who have had posts hidden may have been filed against.)

We will need to get clarification from Steve S., but I believe he means the current process. In essence, what the current process is, is that if a post warrants flagging and possible removal, an MIR should be filed to document the issue. From here, you revert to T Stanton's explanation of the general process.

Note: Not all flags are recorded as MIRs. Flagging has been misinterpreted in the past (refer to my previous comment) and not all flags come from Leaders, Moderators, etc. If a post is flagged twice, it is automatically hidden by the system. It is still flagged and visible to Moderators/Leaders, just not shown to the general membership. Upon review, the flags can be cleared and the post/comment reshown as needed.

But to answer your questions:

not all flagged or hidden posts/comments have MIRs filed;
Members should be aware when specific actions are taken against them (if they are warranted). So any MIR that is deemed to be valid and warranting contact the member will know about when a Mentor reaches out to them.

commented Jul 6, 2020 by Steven Harris Owl (956k points)

@kelts, Yes, there has been a process much like described by Steve Harris. Flagging a post was never intended IMO for questionable comments. It was spam links etc. The MIR process is for all facets of wikitree. Wikitree G2G has moderators that do much beyond looking at flagged post eg categorization encouraging collaboration and posting friendly reminders about dwwa etc. The thing I had always with reviewing flagged post is that I always endeavored (sometimes failed) to assume good intentions. Reading a chat transcription gets messy because Wikitree caters to multiple diversities. So translation etc comes into play. What I might understand as blunt another person might describe as cruel. Which than the problems with members come into play. We tried hard not to censor people.

And no not all hidden post had MIR filed however the process was there to use if there appeared to be patterns. I think we all understand that some people have bad days. We human but again we try to assume good intentions.

If you have any specific questions I'd be happy to answer them. Feel free to shoot me an email.

P.s the system wasn't perfect but when used as expected IMO it worked.

commented Jul 6, 2020 by Anthony McCabe Owl (402k points)

In a company, personal data and that of their customers, at least in Europe, are protected and should not simply be shared with third parties without express permission. The company behind WikiTree is Interesting.com, Inc. and I was wondering if its members (customers), including Leaders etc. of WikiTree should not be seen as third parties. The fact that personal notes of members, about members are shared among themselves in certain groups, could easily be seen as a violation of privacy. I came to the idea because of the miles of responses above and wondered if these so-called "Black Marks" are actually legal. All the more because this is not known jointly and this information can apparently only be found in hidden pages for a selective group of members.

Then the question automatically arises, is there more information what we do not know about members? Unfortunately I deviate from the subject, but this too is an extension of this, given the resistance I see against the proposal and the ensuing enforcement.

commented Jul 6, 2020 by Joop van Belzen Owl (171k points)
edited Jul 6, 2020 by Joop van Belzen

But if those "black marks" are forever staying in your "leader's account" and there is no way to remove them, then this is a part of the discussion that is on topic. And after seeing how people are told here "you have told your opinion often enough" and "agreement to Honor Code is shown by words and actions" (btw, I don't see where Julie K. violates the Honor Code), then you push me more and more in the direction: "I will scroll through G2G twice or thrice a day, see what is interesting to me, try to help to answer exact questions and otherwise post in Weekend Chat and this is it." You are crashing the community, don't you see it? Good contributors suspend their account, leave the site and their expertise will be missing. And THIS is no good development. I am reminded more and more of the other forum where I eventually left.

commented Jul 7, 2020 by Jelena Eckstädt Golden Owl (2.0m points)

Hi Eowyn,

Since you reprimanded me, I feel that you don't understand the way I perceive this proposal as such I will atempt to explain this in English as best I can.

The author invited comments in this thread by referring to the whole Discussion Rules Page and not just the six rules. There was in my view a very good reason for this. It is because there are new procedural elements contained above the six rules.

Let me explain what I perceive as new procedural elements and why it is new.

When a new member joins WikiTree there are a few condition pages we agree to in a process. The first is the Terms of Service Agreement page and the Acceptable Use Policy page. We are also made aware of the Privacy Policy Then comes our Honor Code if we are to proceed with WikiTree and from the Honor Code page is the Courtesy Page for which this new Discussion Rules Page is added as a desire to establish clear and explicit policies.

Now that we have established our source pages, my challange to you is to show me exactly where we agree to Violations or "Black Marks" to be permanently recorded against our accounts in these source pages. This is very new concept being introduced by the wording "Violations should be recorded" to which we agree by signing the Honor code and agree to its subsequent updates.

I will gladly appologise and withdraw my posts if I am in the wrong.

commented Jul 7, 2020 by Louis Heyman Owl (112k points)

Chris Whitten · Answer 3 · 2020-06-30T12:16:37+0000

Show 21 previous comments

While I'm not significantly opposed to the new rules (most of them seem fairly straightforward), the concept of removing more personal interactions and non-genealogical posts and moving towards a more professional approach like Dragnet ("Just the facts, Ma'am") doesn't appeal to me. However, I have a few suggestions that could work.

1) Consider requiring an account to post to G2G - for one, this will cut down on some of the spam, although it won't stop the "fake accounts" that get created out there.

Or

2) Create a private section of G2G that perhaps does require an account where discussions off-topic can occur. Moderators can certainly move conversations there if they accidentally are posted to the main boards, and it would be something that wouldn't show up on the primary view.

I'm all for trying to keep the genealogical conversations clear and separate from the non-genealogical ones, but to completely cut them out altogether has the potential to make the board sterile and not fun anymore.

The other issue is the "no politics or religion". I'm an unapologetic Christian, so it's a significant part of my life and while I don't push my religion on others, nor do I try to sway them over to my faith (unless they ask first, but I'd rather they tell me they want more than for me to shove it in their face), however, I see nothing wrong if someone asks, "What did you do this weekend?" and my response is "Went to church" - or "Attended a church meeting". I do agree that it's not appropriate to spend large posts detailing political or religious leanings, likes and dislikes, or go overboard on any of these areas, but I fear stating "none" will be taking this too far. If this rule goes into place, I fear I'll have to be Joe Friday on the few posts I'll be willing to participate in, and leave it to "Just the Facts".

commented Jul 2, 2020 by Scott Fulkerson Golden Owl (1.6m points)

To clarify my position re politics/religion.I don't think such topics should be prohibited. The way we interpret history, who we record and what we record about them isn't value free. It is predicated on our beliefs and understanding. Why do some members of wikitree seek connections with royalty or magna carta barons? Is the predominant genealogy as recorded here classist and racist? In view of recent events, do we actively seek out and record the involvement and profit gained by individuals in the slave trade or by the exploitation of others? These topics should, in my opinion not be taboo, unless if course all we want to record are bare facts of birth, marriage and death.

GDPR was an unusual instance. Something that affected Wikitree but where the current prevailing views on one side of the Atlantic were contrary to those adopted by many on the other. I see no problem with people expressing disagreement. Nevertheless, adversarial, nationalistic comments shouldn't have been permitted . They were unkind and alienated people (and in retrospect should have been flagged because they were against the prevailing honour code)

I still don't want to see lots of negative, 'thou shalt not rules'. I believe they could stiffle participation. I would prefer simple positive rules, the golden rule being; to behave towards other members in a kind and considerate way. If monitored, it should preclude attacks on individuals or nationalities.

commented Jul 4, 2020 by Helen Ford Owl (582k points)

As someone who asked a specific question about politics here, it seems appropriate to comment further. While I believed that common courtesy and the Honor Code would have covered this situation, I have observed that the flagging and moderation of comments depend upon the nationality of the member who posted (and of the moderator). While it is relatively clear what the US standard is with regards to partisan comments, it is not so clearcut when the poster is from outside the US. Similarly, off-topic discussion is sometimes considered acceptable, whereas "public service announcements" from another country would be frowned upon. (I hope my attempt at humour in my answer got the point across and wasn't taken as either personal criticism or as ridicule - that was not the intent.) I don't have a problem with anyone reporting or commenting neutrally on contemporary events e.g. "NZ has had 66 days without community transmission" or "Today is Waitangi Day" - which for a New Zealander could have "political" overtones if a statement was included about protests. In fact I love seeing what is happening in the rest of the world during the Weekend Chat. I also have no issue with, "I went to church yesterday to attend the baptism of my first grandchild" as that is not a religious message. However, if something is flagged, the moderator needs to consider the appropriateness of the post on the main board in an international genealogy forum. There is some leeway in the Weekend Chat, but again comments must not be controversial in any way.

commented Jul 6, 2020 by Fiona McMichael Owl (239k points)

You're missing the point. It's that anything do with politics or religion regardless of how slightly to the subject is going to be frowned upon. This proposal completely negates non-topic discussion.

This insofar raises a question mark over whether we are supposed to be talking about anything in our personal lives during these Weekend Chats. As far as I can see, if I were to go into hospital again, the ruling would be that no posting is allowed because it isn't genealogy related then it isn't allowed and the only thing that would flag anyone to it is that I'd have to place {{Absent}} on my profile. I'd neglected in the Weekend Chat to mention that I'd been at 2 funerals over the course of the weekend because they were both held on church property (the very mention of church offends people now). It's because of things like this where I no longer feel comfortable mentioning anything personal on here.

commented Jul 6, 2020 by Richard Shelley Owl (262k points)

I'm specifically talking about the last line of the statement of this rule: Under no circumstance should politics, religion or any other potentially controversial topic be discussed unless it is directly related to genealogy on WikiTree

I have seen comments negatively constructed on other members talking about anything church related (after very lightly mentioning something I was doing/had done that week).

I am very particular about this because there is very real need for hesitancy.

Strike 1? Accuracy. There was a fiasco with a project which took about a year to get resolved due to usage of incorrect conventions and correcting project parameters.

Strike 2? Unspoken rules. One weekend chat, I had dared to make a comment stating what other citizens had made criticizing a political decision. Major backlash as a result and this
Now, this proposal could be argued as a warning before Strike 3 because of a post I made questioning the definition of an existing policy.

If this is passed, all it takes is for me to say or do something, not pay attention to the forum for a couple of minutes, get subjected to a brimstone barrage and get overwhelmed trying to convey my point of view too little too late by which point I would then have to email the wikitree team to delete my account and associated living persons to this account.

With respect Jillaine, I just can't afford to trust that statement that you have referenced. Because how strict is strict? And which person is going to jump for the gun before the story is heard?

commented Jul 6, 2020 by Richard Shelley Owl (262k points)

Chris Whitten · Answer 4 · 2020-06-30T12:17:23+0000

"Personal criticism" is ill-defined. There is such a thing as constructive criticism, and yes, it can still be personal. For example, "Chris, I think you could have worded things differently. Here is an example of how." This could be construed as a personal criticism, but yet it is still a constructive criticism, as I have provided a potential solution.

If anything I can argue that this rule could be changed to "no ad hominem attacks", which is probably more of what you are after.

The wording change makes it much more explicit as to what is disallowed. We don't want people attacking other people in a personal way. The word "criticism" is too soft a word and has multiple definitions, some of which can be in a valid discussion.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Eric Weddington Owl (581k points)
edited Jun 30, 2020 by Eric Weddington

Laura said it best "Treat everyone with respect and how you would want to be treated yourself."

It is difficult to separate this from Rule 6 - ridicule, sarcasm and condescension and how things can easily be misconstrued as personal criticism when not intended as such, especially with language barriers. Although I can't seem to find it now, Chris F replied somewhere in this thread with two different examples of suggesting that someone add sources to profiles -- one was something like "Your profiles need sources" which sounds like criticism and the other like "Adding sources to profiles will help in your genealogy research, did you know that there are these ways to find sources xxxx. Would you like some help finding sources?"

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Kay Knight Owl (750k points)

I just Googled it and now I know what it means.

"Ad hominem" (Latin) an objection that relates to the person making an assertion, not the assertion itself. Such arguments are considered improper.

In Dutch we know the phrase "Play on the man" translated literally for this subject, because non Dutch speakers probably do not understand the literal translation, you can find a Latin phrase that can easily be looked up so other people from all languages can understand it.

I agree on what this rule means. In discussions you should not "play on the man".

In my opinion, to include this as a ban in official policy is going too far. This idea was probably born from past experiences as much regulation arises. If this were to happen frequently, I think a rule would be appropriate. I regularly read g2g discussion, come across it occasionally but not often.

I think it would be better to include the topic flags in the G2G help text, where someone who feels unfairly treated by another person, in any way, can submit this to third parties for assessment. When flagging, a motivation could be given and an indication with the flag who did this. So that you avoid or can recognize that there is a "hunt" on a less loved person.

commented Jul 5, 2020 by Joop van Belzen Owl (171k points)

Chris Whitten · Answer 5 · 2020-06-30T12:18:34+0000

Show 24 previous comments

Jamie, if someone posts to G2G asking for information that they themselves have not been able to find (or bothered to look for), then it seems a little ungrateful to me for them to resent the posts. As for others then skipping the thread due to other answers, that can always happen. It particularly happens, I think, when some other person swoops in and prematurely awards a star, which often happens. But those problems are not going to be solved by this proposal.

And by the way, there are other reasons for someone to respond with one document per post, including word limits and their own work methods, which may not involve saving up multiple sources to try and combine in one post. People who ask for information on G2G ought to be happy to have their questions given attention, rather than complain about results which are sometimes wrong.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Living Kelts Owl (581k points)

As written this has a number of issues, as identified by everyone above. There is the character limit, which forces multiple responses to add several source citations as well as the "oh look, I found another.." I have seen many extremely valuable chat type conversations focused on profiles/sources that would be a shame to hide from the general community via private messages or on individual profiles.

That said, there is no rule or guidance about actually looking at a linked profile and not rapidly responding with several sources that either don't apply or already exist on the profile. Similarly, continuing with such responses when a post is made that the source has been seen or doesn't apply.

The 3 guidelines here could easily apply to no criticism, sarcasm, etc...

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Kay Knight Owl (750k points)

Chris Whitten · Answer 6 · 2020-06-30T12:18:59+0000

Show 12 previous comments

@SJBaty - Experiences differ. If the proposed rules are applied consistently and neutrally, it won't be a question of self-imposed abstaining, it will be actual censoring - posts will be deleted, conversation will be stifled. I can think of one thread recently where a non-member took issue with perceived WT policy. The responses were educational for the entire community, but not without controversy or pointed words. Under the proposed rules, the entire thread, as well as individual posts apparently were, might have been deleted based on any number of grounds. That would have been a pity in my view. In reality, I don't think the new rules, if adopted, will be moderated aggressively or consistently for all the reasons in this thread, so they are unlikely to change my behaviour much. So, on the other hand, I don't much see the point. I find it difficult to believe if a poster is so disruptive they are blowing up the board and shutting down participation there aren't already rules to deal with it.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Ellen Curnes Owl (89.2k points)
edited Jun 30, 2020 by Ellen Curnes

Thank you SJ and Isabelle. I know it is difficult for some to see why the rules are necessary, but maybe that should be a clue in itself. If you are actively participating in the G2G, aren't seeing a lot of issues, and haven't had posts hidden by moderators - you most likely will not see any changes after the above help page is created. There have been more frequent issues lately in the forum and our Moderators, Mentors, and Mediators have put extra volunteer time in trying to clean things up so that others aren't effected by it. From the sounds of many of the comments here, they have done an excellent job. The proposed changes give those already monitoring our tree a page to send someone to that is causing issues. Right now, all they have is the Honor Code which doesn't address many of the things they have recently dealt with.

My mother would say "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." I think I would go more with a comment made elsewhere in this thread that I want to treat others as I want to be treated. If everyone thought the same the proposal wouldn't be necessary.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Mindy Silva Golden Owl (1.1m points)

Chris Whitten · Answer 7 · 2020-06-30T12:19:35+0000

Show 20 previous comments

Chris Whitten · Answer 8 · 2020-06-30T12:21:30+0000

I am not in favour of making this rule more difficult and more draconian than it already is.

I think it impossible to not mention living people, but a mention is NOT posting personal details about them, nor is it discussing their personal lives. We already have the caution at the bottom of the page, to be careful "when distributing private information", but what is already public (for a public figure) isn't private (see next point).

With regard to notables, they are "out there" in the public gaze, in movies/tv shows/on twitter/facebook/instagram/whatever INVITING people to discuss them. How is it so bad if we mention them? A mention is not discussing their private lives.

Am I to never again mention that I have a family and that I miss them like the world has already ended? That it really, really hurts that the last time I was able to hug my children was more than two years ago, that is has been six years since I hugged my grandchildren. Fine, if that is the absolute rule, even in "chatty" discussions in the Tree House, I will refrain . . . but that also means nobody will ever get to know me, the person behind the research. (I have shared more about myself with non-Wikitreers who have contacted me because of profiles I created and/or manage, than I have with any more than, maybe, three Wikitreers.)

If someone slips and mentions a living relative, or a living notable, or something in the news, will the mountain fall on them? Will the (NOT my expression, but one I have seen used on facebook (Wikitree)) "Wikitree police" jump on them and ban them for a minor infraction? There are already people who are disaffected by the rules of Wikitree, and think there are (or should be) ways around said rules.

PLEASE don't drive more people away, or disaffect more people, by making rules so strict and strictly enforced that nobody wants to be here.

(Post # 3, but it has been more than 1 hour since I last commented.)

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Melanie Paul Owl (495k points)

I down-voted this one because of what seems a critical lack of definition. Exceptions notwithstanding regarding notables, as Melanie and Robin mentioned, to me the biggest issue here revolves around whether or not we are identifying living people, not the mere mention of them.

Much of what I respond to on G2G revolves around an area of modest expertise: DNA. Questions in that area can become quite complex when multiple or unknown relationships are involved...and when discussing people who have taken a DNA test for genealogy we're talking about people who were alive at least in 2000, and I would hazard that, by volume, over 90% of test-takers are alive today.

Unless this rule is modified to appropriately indicate acceptable anonymization of living individuals, I believe it will eliminate some 80% of all DNA-related questions and comments.

I agree that there is no need to specify "my 2nd cousin Jane Doe," but when we try, for example, to begin discussing complex relationships by replacing all involved with an abstract identifier (e.g., Person A, Person B), it makes an already complicated subject even more difficult to follow. If a questioner uses a term that doesn't reveal an identity (e.g., "my 2nd cousin," "my niece," "an unknown match named Jane") I think that should be sufficient and that the discussion would be most intelligible if the questioner's terms are maintained.

Too, if this goes into effect as-is, a rewrite of WikiTree's DNA "confirmation" policies and guidelines seems as if it would be required; https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:DNA_Confirmation, as well as an edit of all profiles current bearing those confirmation statements. These policies currently require the mention of DNA matches who are most probably living people. The WikiTree ID (which would reveal a surname) is required even if the individual does not have a public family tree; and if the match is not a WikiTree member, "initials (or another anonymous identifier)" are to be used.

I believe the phrase, "initials (or another anonymous identifier)," or similar, should be specified in the new rule as acceptable means of including mention of living individuals in a discussion.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Edison Williams Owl (628k points)

This is an outgrowth of the EU privacy rules isn't it? We need to be very careful with this as it relates to children. But some living people are by who and what they are in the public eye and have waived that consideration for those parts of their life they have chosen to make public. Example: An actor or actress would be upset if you did no name them as a star of something they performed in. By performing they waive that part of their right to privacy. Conversely their private life is off limits. I can see where it is harder to moderate this and simpler to just say none of it. But is that realistic? And if you are doing that then also say no one can post info looking for bio parents or siblings because those have the potential of being living people. And that raises a lot of issues about how we handle DNA postings on WikiTree. This needs more work I think.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Laura Bozzay Golden Owl (1.1m points)

Well, fudgesicle, SJ. I'm sure my inept click will be offset by someone else.

And Laura just made me realize something else: it isn't just established actors or "notables." I regularly reference living people, by name. Frequently. Because--unless I know the author(s) to be deceased--I wouldn't be able to properly cite a research paper, book, lecture, video, or just about any creative work unless I do. I wouldn't be able to reference the inestimable Elizabeth Shown Mills by name, as we do in WikiTree's own Help page for sourcing: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources. I wouldn't be able to point people to the work of genealogists like Jim Bartlett, Blaine Bettinger, Kitty Cooper, Roberta Estes, Debbie Kennett, Leah Larkin, and many many more unless it's written something like, "A person wrote about this in a recent blog post. You can see what this person wrote at this link. This person found--from this person's personal research--that..."

But the proposed rule, as written, states uncategorically, "Do not discuss living people in comments," which specifically includes G2G. So how would we properly attribute a resource or piece of information? In just about every reference style guide, if the author is known, the author's name comes first in any citation.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Edison Williams Owl (628k points)

Ellen Curnes · Answer 9 · 2020-06-30T14:38:32+0000

With respect to G2G, in my view, such rules would likely be enforced in a manner that stifles legitimate discussion about genealogical principles and Wikitree policy. This is a crowdsourced genealogical site, the purpose of which is, over time and through collaborative effort, excellent family history. A group mentoring reinforcing this purpose occurs through G2G, and frank discussion in an authentic sometimes passionate voice ultimately contributes more to this goal than "friendliness," although in my experience most posts are polite. Of course, this is my opinion - but I believe we all should be mentally reading that into every response. I haven't been through the mentoring or mediation wars on this site, but in my experience moderating other open forums, three rules are critical - a poster as a person is never on-topic, only the subject matter of their post; no name calling; opinion is not fact. The proposed rules seem to me much more than necessary or responsive.

I would also suggest that if these are aimed more at public comments on profiles, the better solution might be requiring discussion to be through messaging rather than on the profile itself. I admit, this is not a situation I have encountered much. I still think the three principles described above would be more encouraging of the principles of this site.

I do not like the idea of pushing more genealogical discussions into private messaging. On a Wiki, content discussions should be carried out on the website, where all contributors can access the information. Yes, private discussions are entirely appropriate when the topic is a living person, someone's close family, a family secret, or a similarly private matter. However, we should not be encouraging even more private messages like the ones I get way too often (often regarding Open profiles managed by a project for which I am a Project Leader) that communicate purely genealogical information (maybe an additional source to cite) or that ask a question about the person's life (maybe asking whether a man served in a particular war). — Ellen Smith, Jun 30, 2020

Clyde Perkins · Answer 10 · 2020-06-30T16:53:36+0000

In this era of great incivility in the public arena, rules seem a reasonable way to reduce the extremes. We pray there must be a way.

However, If you establish rules, there must be enforcers to interpret and require compliance.

Can we agree with them?

“If all the fools in this world should die, lordly God how lonely I should be.” – Mark Twain

Restrict personal expression (1^st Amendment)?

“It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.” - Mark Twain

Make everyone happy?

“If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.” – Benjamin Franklin

The cost?

“Every man is a damn fool for at least five minutes every day. Wisdom consists in not exceeding the time limit.” – Dale Carnegie

This is a critical time for WikiTree leadership to act wisely; may you be guided by the lessons of history.

Clyde: There is one thing that I would disagree with you. It's established that the US 1st amendment (freedom of speech) can be restricted in certain reasonable ways, and still not be violation of personal freedom. Also remember that WikiTree is a private platform, and can reasonably limit the kinds of comments that people post. Other sites do this too, and have done so for a long time. — Eric Weddington, Jun 30, 2020
Eric, thanks for your response.

Note that I only asked questions because my opinions may be wrong.

However, after living for a decade in a country where the penalty is death for violations of censorship, it seems to me that it's hard to agree on the meaning of "reasonable."

Respectfully,

Clyde — Clyde Perkins, Jun 30, 2020

Danielle Liard · Answer 11 · 2020-06-30T23:45:09+0000

Rule One: No Off-Topic Discussion: Define off-topic. One may be answering a question about a person with info about the era they were in. Would this be considered ''off-topic''? I do agree that going off on a personal tangent disrelated to the question should not be allowed, but definitions of what constitutes such is truly a grab-bag of possibilities. Unenforceable without mega time spent by moderators.

Rule Two: No Personal Criticism The terminology needs to be corrected. Criticism appears to be being viewed as strictly negative, whereas there are various examples throughout this discussion of constructive criticism. Make it no personal attacks or insults and leave it at that. Oh, and what are Ad Hominem attacks? My Latin is rusty.

Rule Three: No Discussion of Living People Er,,, let's see, if I say that I was just with my brothers, nieces and nephew and grand-nephews/nieces at my mother's funeral, would this be infringing on this rule? Even though it's all my family? How about the discussion on who is related to our past Prime Minister, whose son now sits in the same seat as his father? Said son being very much alive, although the father is deceased.

Rule Four: No Rapid Responses Now this one gets broken instantly by various people participating in this discussion. And since you set up a muliple-answer system for it, right there you are inviting answers to 6 points, which may be answered by the same person in a short time period. Definitely not a good plan. I often collaborate with our friends in France project on research from their end. One gentleman is extremely generous in his research, above and beyond the call of duty, but he posts his successive findings of records in sequencial comments after his initial answer, not by editing his original answer. Which actually makes more sense, as the separate comments deal with separate records and sometimes persons. You want to stop that sort of contribution? Nix.

Rule Five: No Venting or Ranting Again, one needs some definitions here. I have sometimes had to deal with questions or answers in G2G coming from someone who got himself banned some time ago, but still persists in posting in G2G. I recognize his style very easily. The last time he did this I said something like ''it ill behooves you to be asking ...'' whatever it was. Would this then be construed as ranting or venting or other negative response? Really don't see the point of this. <Rant over> as some others have said before in responses to this question.

Rule Six: No Ridicule, Sarcasm or Condescension This one is redundant really, see rule 1

Overall, I will echo what has been said by many before me. What problem are you trying to solve? Language issues have been mentioned by several. Being fluently bilingual from childhood, I can well see their point. Have also done translation in the past, and the old Italian motto for translators applies: Traduttore Traditore. Don't impute ill intent without just cause.

I don't think I've heard that motto. But, maybe a variant of it. Usually it's "Think before you speak." — Chris Ferraiolo, Jul 1, 2020
Chris, the best translation of it is Treacherous translator. Translating is a fine art, and since there are nuances in one language that may not exist in the other language, it is sometimes extremely difficult to convey the exact meaning.

For instance, in English there exist the terms Like and Love. In French, there is Aimer. (Period) So to translate the word like, one uses euphemisms or other tricks, like ''j'aime bien'', but there again, that can be taken to mean like, like it well enough, or love it well...... — Danielle Liard, Jul 1, 2020
Make it no personal attacks or insults and leave it at that. is what I offered as a solution to the ambiguity of the current wording — Danielle Liard, Jul 1, 2020
@ Dani. Thanks.

@ Steve: Perhaps a solution would be to get more active mods? — Chris Ferraiolo, Jul 2, 2020
Chris, have you seen the list of current Moderators? I would say we have a fairly diverse and active group already, and I am sure this my expand in the future as well. — Steven Harris, Jul 2, 2020

Greg Slade · Answer 12 · 2020-06-30T23:48:10+0000

I am thoroughly ambivalent about this proposal.

On the one hand, I love WikiTree, and one of the many reasons that I love it so much is that it has (in my experience, anyway¹), been mercifully free of the flamefests which have infested so many other online fora.

I can also appreciate that having "the rules" (whatever they are) spelled out so that everybody can see them is a good thing.

No, that's not strong enough. Rules are essential. I'm old enough that I've lost count of the times when I have encountered somebody who argues that rules aren't necessary, that we should be free to be flexible and adapt to the situation, and so on. In every case, the person who argued that was a person in authority. I eventually came to the conclusion that the main function of rules is to protect those who are not in a position of authority from the whims of those who are. (Where there are rules, they apply to everybody. Where there aren't, however much those in power may talk about freedom and flexibility, what it really boils down to "You have to do what I say.")

And, at least for those rules which have been in place all along (or at least since I joined), I have no problem with them. (If I had, I wouldn't have joined.) So I have no problem with banning discussion of living people, because that's been a rule since I've been here. I also have no problem with a rule against ad hominem attacks. (To me, that's a basic rule of any rational discourse, because making an ad hominem attack is what people do when they know that they can't actually refute the other person's argument.)

Yes, I did read and note the comments from moderators that most of us aren't subjected to the nastiest stuff, because it gets flagged and hidden.

answered Jun 30, 2020 by Greg Slade Owl (838k points)

There are other rules in this proposal, though, which give me progressively more sense of unease as I read them.

Take venting or ranting. I saw a movie recently where one of the characters said something along the lines of "Never present a problem without presenting a solution along with it." He was talking, in the context of working in an office, about how to get along with a very demanding boss, but it struck me as sound advice for a wide variety of situations. It's too easy to get into a negative attitude and whine about something I don't like without doing or suggesting anything that might make the situation better. I might feel better (at least temporarily) for getting it off my chest, but only at the cost of dumping all that negativity on other people who don't deserve it, and, at the same time, I haven't done anything to improve the situation. So it's good advice and everything, but do we really need to make it a rule? Venting may be unpleasant to endure, but is it going to kill WikiTree? It seems to me that, with any proposed rule, we have to ask ourselves, not just whether it's reasonable, but whether it's necessary.

(And, yes, I recognise that I have been guilty of ranting about things like the lousy handwriting of census enumerators, which we can't do anything about. In fact, if all of these suggested rules were enforced, I'd be run out of WikiTree on a rail in no time¹.)

I'm even more concerned with the "No Rapid Response" rule. Sometimes, the answer to a question really is as simple as "Read this help page." You don't need to spend 15 minutes ruminating all the permutations and ramifications. Just point them to the help page, and move on. (Although I can say that I would like to encourage people to put in links to the relevant help pages. I think saying something like "This help page can help you understand how to do that." is far more useful than simply saying, "Do this.", because it helps people to understand that WikiTree has a ton of useful information in the help pages, and they can find a lot of answers for themselves if they check them out. But, again, I would hesitate to make it a rule.)

One suggested rule that would get me in big trouble, should it become an official rule, is the one about "No Off-Topic Discussion".

I was born off-topic. I love just following a conversation wherever it leads. I even have a term for it: chasing rabbits. It's not like it's impossible for me to stay on topic, but I equate being strictly on-topic with work or otherwise no-fun situations, and to be honest, I'm not on WikiTree because I'm obsessed with knowing everything there is to know about my family, but because it's fun. So being in a "fun" environment but having to stick to a "no-fun" mode of discourse would be... dissonant.

(I am reminded of one poor guy who posted a question in G2G a couple of years ago. Apparently, I wasn't the only one in a silly mood that day, because a bunch of us piled into the thread, shamelessly highjacked it, and got very silly with it. The thread went on like that for a few days. The guy might well have gotten frustrated [although his question did get answered], although I hope he could recognise that we were all just having some fun, and not actually making fun of him. That's one of my favourite memories from being here, actually.)

I don't think I'm alone in this. Virtually every online forum that I've ever been on (at least, those which even had a topic) has had an "off topic" section. It seems to me that it's a pretty strongly and widely felt need. So perhaps a better solution would be to add an "Off Topic" category, and steer off-topic discussion (such as the weekend chat) in that direction, rather than banning off-topic posts entirely.

I also feel compelled to say that, as much as I hate/loathe/despise political, um, "debates", I don't really think that we could do genealogy on politicians without ever once mentioning that those people were, you know, political. I'm much more open to discussing religion (as long as it's not at the level of "you're stupid for believing that!"), but I do recognise that there are those who don't even want to hear the faintest mention of it. But unless we're going to change our focus from including everybody in one big family tree to including everybody except politicians and religious figures, I question whether an outright ban on those topics is really going to help us in our quest.

I heard you, in the back, muttering, "And that would be a good thing, too."

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Greg Slade Owl (838k points)

But it's the proposed "No Ridicule, Sarcasm, or Condescension" rule that would get me in the biggest trouble, for a couple of reasons.

First, and I'm sure that this will come as a shock to nobody whomsoever, I'm an incorrigible jokester. Even at work, when I'm supposed to be drafting serious announcements telling people how to secure their electronic devices, I frequently get feedback like, "I love your announcements, they're so funny!", and then I groan and say, "Oh, no. I did it again."

There is also the problem that so many people don't understand the nature of sarcasm. I remember taking some kind of psychological test¹ a few years ago, and I was supposed to rate how much I agreed with a statement which went something like, "I will be sarcastic with someone if I think they deserve it." The very wording of the question assumed that sarcasm is always a form of attack. To me, sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you mean for comic effect. (In our family, a frequent occurrence of this is when my wife cooks something and asks me if it's okay. Since she's a particularly good cook, my usual response is to say something like "You wouldn't like like it. I'll just take one for the team and eat it all so you don't have to." I'm being sarcastic, but not attacking her. Quite the opposite: by saying that I'll eat it all myself, my real meaning is that it's very good.)

But the real problem is that people's perception of being the subject of ridicule, sarcasm, or condescension is very subjective. I've had any number of times when I've had to say to somebody something along the lines of "The information you need to solve that problem is in this step on that page in large, bold, red print." I have to be extremely careful to limit my answer to the indicative mood, without the slightest hint of imperative (still less judgement), because it is so common for them, once they realise that the answer they needed was in the instructions all along (and prominently, at that), to feel stupid for missing it. And, unfortunately, it's not a very long step from feeling stupid to feeling like somebody else called you stupid, whether they actually did or not.

Peter Ustinov is quoted as saying, "It is our responsibilities, not ourselves, that we should take seriously." That's one of my favourite quotes, and I try to live by it. So when I'm joking around, what I'm really trying to say is, "If you don't agree with everything I say, that's not a problem. I am under no illusions that I am anything like an important person. So if what I say makes sense to you, go for it, but if it doesn't, then don't worry about it."

Unfortunately, what one person intends isn't always what the other person perceives. For my whole life, people have misinterpreted my meaning and/or intentions. Sometimes, that has been because I didn't think through what I said thoroughly enough. But a scary number of times, somebody has jumped to a conclusion so completely diverged from what I intended, said, did, or even thought (and sometimes from reality) that I could only conclude that they weren't actually reacting to me at all, but rather to some process going on inside their own heads that I couldn't even begin to guess at. And trying to explain what I really meant or intended has never gotten me anywhere with those people. I was tried and found guilty (in their minds, anyway) with no chance of appeal. ("My mind is made up. Don't try to confuse me with the facts.")

So, to be honest, I'm seriously frightened by the mere possibility of giving veto power over what can and can't be said here to people who see themselves as being insulted. Probably that's why this post is so needlessly long. But, at least I'm not breaking the "No Rapid Response" rule...

I flunked, of course. I may not be stupid, but I'm definitely crazy.

commented Jun 30, 2020 by Greg Slade Owl (838k points)

Hey, Greg! I like what you said here.

I'm not sure what to make of your paragraph above the footnote there, though. The thing about people with veto power feeling insulted? Were you meaning members who complain because they feel insulted? Or were you talking about Moderators, Mediators, Leaders, etc, feeling insulted? I feel comfortable saying that's not a motive for the introduction of these rules.

Also, the paragraph right before that: I'm right there with you!!

It's my nature to see the glass as half full, so when someone implies a negative motive behind anything I say, I'm always surprised.

Finally, I feel like a lot of people are reading too much into these rules. I think the Moderators, Mediators, Leaders, Team, etc., have been pretty reasonable about things in the forum, and I don't see that changing. The proposed rules just put into "writing" what we already look for.

And now I'm sure someone is going to come along and read something negative into that, too.

(Hey ... maybe we need to have more emojis ... they're so good at conveying meaning)

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Julie Ricketts Owl (551k points)

So it's good advice and everything, but do we really need to make it a rule? Venting may be unpleasant to endure, but is it going to kill WikiTree?

Absolutely and Yes, it could. The intent here is more for the situation where "most of us aren't subjected to the nastiest stuff, because it gets flagged and hidden." Other posts that may be seen as rants by some, but are not flagged and/or hidden are obviously not recognized as rants. In short, I don't see much changing for this, it just helps explain the situations that truly are negative rants.

As an example, if a person routinely comments on every single thread related to a certain topic, using the same repeated responses to try and get their point across - even though they have posted it tons of times already - then that would be considering ranting/venting. The key to this is where it says "disagreement cannot be expressed freely and frequently." In short, state your piece and be done with it. Don't say it 1,000 times in 1,000 different ways on every thread you come across.

The rest of your points I think have been covered at lengths in other threads.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Steven Harris Owl (956k points)

Pip Sheppard · Answer 13 · 2020-07-01T03:35:24+0000

This was a very eye-opening thread! My deranged and rambling thoughts follow, but they won’t be very specific because I am such a global, right-brained thinker. I’m posting a general answer that does not fall under agreement or disagreement.

I am (presently) the host of the Weekend Chat (a neat fit for someone who is gregarious and loquacious as I can be), and I do appreciate the participation of so many members. I especially enjoy getting to know my fellow members via the Chat when they share what is going on in their lives and what they are working on in WikiTree. I see this on G2G also, when someone will share a research incident that may have happened years ago and which may appear to be off topic but supports the “I’ve been there, too” mindset. I see this when someone will make a remark that would be just for a laugh, one that I got and appreciated.

Over my two+ years as a member, I have enjoyed the kind responses and witty ripostes on the G2G Forum. I began to know people on the G2G Forum long before I began to host the Chat, those who were helpful (too many to count), those who were crusty Jack Klugmans (not naming names, but I love you anyway, especially if you make me laugh), and those few who are so brittle and to the point that I think my glasses might break.

I've become pretty good at knowing a response will usually be helpful by who the "answerer" is, and which ones won't be for the same reason. I also read many of those threads that may have nothing to do with my research, just because I learn so much from my fellow WikiTreers.

I remember a prof once saying in class long ago (don’t ask HOW long ago) that every time a new law is enacted a new class of criminals is created. Applying this to G2G, would, all of a sudden, a new class of forum violators be created? I recall in The Lord of the Rings when Frodo and his companions returned to the Shire, how cowed the inhabitants were by Sharky’s new rules. If this occurred here, I believe it would be rather sad. I hope I would be wrong in this instance.

Would sharing a personal research find be out of bounds? It doesn’t ask for help or offer any assistance to other members. Would a witty remark meant to see the silly in something, to create a laugh, be flagged? How about when members post photos; does that serve a genealogical purpose?

If these proposed rules are implemented, I can think of one way for at least new members to see the rules before participation. I know for some forums, it is necessary for new participants to read the rules of the forum before joining in. I had this happen today when I joined X Marks the Scot (a forum for kilt enthusiasts like me). I had to register, click an agreement to the rules, and wait until I received an email of approval, all within a few minutes.

I know the above will not be popular, though this process is widely used elsewhere. It would be another hoop for new members to hop through, and we are trying to make things easier for participants, not harder. For example, the new process for becoming a member is MUCH easier than it used to be.

I believe that just about anything is survivable, just as we have done with other new policies that have been implemented. This is not to downplay the many concerns members have expressed in this thread; I agree with many of them. I have an unease about some of the rules myself. And, while I don’t have answers, I do hope that as rules are implemented it won’t dampen our camaraderie. G2G would become so very dry if that were to happen. We really are cousins (even when the Relationship Finder can’t make the connection), a big family, and the restrictions some of the rules would lessen that, I believe, yet hope not.

Chris Ferraiolo · Answer 14 · 2020-07-01T12:25:38+0000

Hail,

I'll be adding to this post throughout the day as I may have come up with some alternatives to some of the rules. Some of you might know that I used to moderate several forums on the Internet where drama was really commonplace and the threats were way worse than the issues members here face. Way worse.

That being said, here are some things I came up with:

1. On the Twitter genealogy hashtag #genchat, we have an open mic night every once in a while. The Tree House serves that same function as does the Weekend Chat. It serves a purpose. To get to know people better. The rules can apply there. Just tell people not to be jerks. But, don't constrict them. Have people be on topic in the genealogy portion of the forum, sure, But, don't constrict 'em elsewhere.

2. Several rules are no brainers. Don't be a jerk. But, to not allow simple things like segues and sarcasm? That's a bit totalitarian in my opinion. Instead, have a rule saying "Don't be a jerk" and keep it that simple. Three strikes and you are out.

More to follow. Stay tuned!

answered Jul 1, 2020 by Chris Ferraiolo Golden Owl (1.0m points)

Well, I wasn't gonna say a curse word. But, basically I was thinking someone who does something like:

1. Insults people based on race, gender, sexual identity, religion etc.

2. Assaults people online.

3. Acts like a creeper. Might want to look that one up. =)

It's not so much a popularity test. It's more if someone goes out of their way to treat others around here badly. Know how people say "Don't WikiTree angry"? Well, this would be a user who Wikitrees angry and would generally be unpleasant.

Basically, we should reprimand those who insult others based on the things I talked about. It's a no-brainer. But, it's something to talk about. We shouldn't ban everyone based on one infraction, though.

Sorry I was vague. It was early when I posted. If you have more questions, let me know.

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Chris Ferraiolo Golden Owl (1.0m points)

Please don't, Julie. Please don't. It'll just make you sad.

Language is important. I have a hard time telling sarcasm in text myself. But, I wouldn't ban someone for being sarcastic. That's a bit too much like big brother, you know.

I'm glad everyone on WikiTree knows better than that. But, it is something we should discuss. This site, even though it is a genealogy site, is on the Internet. And as part of it there can be people who wander in to cause drama.

Assaulting people online would be stuff like doxxing or cyberstalking them for example. There are some really bad people out there. I am so grateful we have none of that here. You honestly have no idea how grateful I am!!

As it is, the Internet is a double edged sword. For all the good it does, there is a dark side to it. So, the best thing, I think would be to treat people how you'd like to be treated. =D

And no problem about replying. We're having a great discussion. Some topics online can be discussed peacefully. Some, can't like religion, politics etc.

In any case, I am glad we have a more relaxed environment here. I can't really think of any more rule suggestions. So far the posts here have been great. =D

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Chris Ferraiolo Golden Owl (1.0m points)

Antonia Reuvers · Answer 15 · 2020-07-01T19:06:36+0000

Antonia, you are so very right--all it takes is for each of us to just be kind. After I read your response here, I went over to Facebook and this came up on my feed....

"Never say mean words out of anger. Your anger will pass but your mean words can scar a person for life. So use kind words or be silent." LessonsLearnedinLife.com

My mother said it shorter, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."

Wise words, but I do have a concern...(and this is not directed toward you or what you wrote, Antonia, but something I have been tossing around in my mind ever since Chris first posted his proposal, so it's just part of the general discussion.)

I've always tried to practice kindness in my "real" life, on other social media, and here on WikiTree, but I have been accused, in the public forum, of writing things which others perceived as not being kind. The accusation of not being kind, in my opinion, is also scarring to the one being accused when no unkindness was intended.

I wonder if these rules of discussion are implemented, will they not only lead to more kindness but could they also lead to more accusations of unkindness when none was intended?

commented Jul 1, 2020 by Nelda Spires Owl (657k points)

David Leighr · Answer 16 · 2020-07-01T19:48:20+0000

I have been on Wiki for about 2 yrs and have experienced frustration in learning how the site works. Signing up for projects, finding answers to style of profiles, even adding a co manager or pasting a banner, is somewhat cumbersome and newer people would benefit with better links to answers and clearer instructions w good samples of how to do something.

Absolutely with you on that but I don’t think it has much to do with setting up laws for people to follow. — Antonia Reuvers, Jul 2, 2020

Andrew Field · Answer 17 · 2020-07-02T06:01:53+0000

The rules to maintain civility are fine, but there is a minefield awaiting those who choose to 'police' these rules. With respect, echoes of Big Brother, the weakness being the interpretation of what is said being offensive or busting the rules. In some rules it is easy and clear cut, in other not so. Do not allow G2G to became a space where good genuine genealogists get fingered subjectively for breaches of the rules. Flagging posts by all and sundry could be counter productive.

Recently, some good member came on board G2G - the member was, I guess, a touch angry and composed himself in all capitals. I merely asked why the member was shouting (on the assumption that one uses capitals to 'shout' in social media) and offered to help. For that I appear to have been admonished (the post was deleted - no doubt after flagging). This was a genuinely concerned response, but clearly someone took it the wrong way. So be careful out there, be nice, and we can all get along.

I agree with you. When someone reacts angrily, there is usually a reason for this, sometimes frustration accumulated for years. The person should be given the opportunity to explain why he or she is angry. Approach such a person willingly and respectfully and you will generally receive a nuanced answer. Direct flagging works the opposite and frustration only increases. — Joop van Belzen, Jul 2, 2020

Jacqueline Girouard · Answer 18 · 2020-07-03T12:53:06+0000

I support this proposal. Anything we can do to clarify how we talk to each other across the continents is desirable in my opinion. If some tweaking needs to be done later, we, as an informed community, can do that. As I understand it, the rules or guidelines are meant to give us a framework for discussion and encourage us to write, re-read what we've written, edit, do it again, always trying to remove ambiguous wording or words that are loaded or inflammatory and can be hurtful or misunderstood. We should never get personal when we disagree--an idea is just that and can be disagreed with as long as we do it with as much skill and tact as we are able.

Natalie Trott · Answer 19 · 2020-07-03T23:04:48+0000

I am rather surprised by many of the comments/answers here.

There are many thoughtful answers from people who have taken the time to absorb the proposed rules as a whole. They have considered the overall health of our forum and the atmosphere that is created when there are no definitive rules of conduct.

Having grown up in a house with six children, I was subject to the ground rules set by my parents. I was also subject to rules of conduct in the military and in every job I've ever held. They were all based on safety, courtesy, and respect for others who shared the same spaces that I did. Just about every online forum I've ever been a member of, including at ravelry, a website for knitters and crocheters, has rules. If I had been presented with rules of conduct for WikiTree's forum when I joined, I would not have been surprised and I would have thought nothing of it.

For the most part, our g2g forum is relaxed, informative, and helpful. Every now and then, there is a more controversial post, and sometimes there is a post that seems completely benign until some sort of wisecrack is dropped. This is why rules are needed; to deal with things that get out of hand. I am a leader, mentor, and g2g moderator, but I do not lie in wait for a WikiTree member to make some sort of mistake in g2g (or anywhere else in WikiTree.) But if I do see something happening that is out of bounds, I will act upon it. Can I tell the difference every single time? Probably not, but this is why we have other moderators and team members to consult. I'm pretty sure that these things will not be an everyday occurance. I'm a pretty good judge of "what's going on here" having mothered 2 kids and 2 step-kids, supervised a busy Navy message center, taught Sunday school, volunteered with scouts and school classrooms, etc. At my age (63 in a few days), I believe I have "seen it all."

Thank you for these rules, Chris, and thank you all for your time.

G2G: What do you think of this Discussion Rules proposal? [closed]

Please log in or register to add a comment.

22 Answers

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Accessing, Deleting and Correcting Personal Information

18. Statute of Limitations

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Rule Six: No Ridicule, Sarcasm or Condescension This one is redundant really, see rule 1

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Related questions

Categories