Anonymous Criticism

See other discussions on this subject in Wiki Community as well.

Before posting negative anonymous criticism of businesses, organizations or individual people, users should consider the long term effect of their actions.

Businesses spend years developing their reputations in the community. Davis Wiki editors are often UCD students that will be gone in a year or two or three. If you are tempted to leave a scathing anonymous criticism of a Davis business, consider whether or not you'd be willing to post your real name with the criticism and whether or not you'd be comfortable making the comment face-to-face with the individual affected. Try to present all the facts, even if they may show your point of view in a less favorable light. Bear in mind that conducting a retail business is a difficult and oftentimes unrewarding endeavor with long hours and contact with people that you might normally go out of your way to avoid.

Also, many Davis Wiki entries pop up first in a Google search, which could potentially harm a business or a person, such as in the case of a customer wanting to find a place to eat or a person's family, friends or employers finding less-than-good information about them.

What one person thinks of as a negative someone else thinks of as accountability. The wiki is meant to be a good place to archive knowledge that would otherwise be forgotten. We shouldn't censor simply because google shows results.

Irresponsible negative criticism is harmful to Daviswiki, the community in general and to the businesses affected. Please try to temper your comments with compassion and a positive attitude. —JimStewart

The reviews you read here are worth what you paid to see them. <-- rule of thumb people, seriously. I take stock in who posted what, and when it's done anonymously and without a community tie (ie the CovertProf who has alot of reviews) I will be sure to take that into account —StevenDaubert

2008-05-22 03:15:14   Here is my criticism to all the critical-bordering-bitchy reviewers on Daviswiki: Stop being a bitch. If a restaurant sucks, then tell us why and get over it. I really don't need to know how restaurant X ruined your life nor do I care to know. Furthermore, to the idiot people who call a particular restaurant management "racist" or question their quality of service through annoying speculations—I'm sure you can get sued for that kind of slander and libel (correct me if I'm wrong). So unless the restaurant is truly out of hand, you better watch out. —EmilyTung

2008-05-22 05:03:06   I suggest a new rule: if one of a user's first five posts mentions 'food poisoning', it should get deleted. Those reports should go to the health department, not Davis Wiki. —BrentLaabs

• Here's my take on food poisoning: when I worked at a local restaurant, we received a call one day from an upset gentleman calling on behalf of his sister. "I just thought you should know that my sister got food poisoning after eating at your restaurant last night. She had to go to the hospital, it was pretty serious." He refused to give me his name or number after I asked several times, saying only that he "thought [we] should know." Finally I asked him what she had eaten. "The french toast," he said. "Sir, we don't have french toast," I said. "You don't? Oh. Never mind," he said, and hung up. Perhaps people do get food poisoning from restaurants, but when stories are left anonymously, they should be taken with a grain of salt. —ElleWeber

2008-05-22 07:47:19   Let's set up guidelines for what exactly people can and cannot say. Or even better have a list of pre-approved comments that they can choose from to leave. —JamesSchwab

• DavisWiki 2.0...the multiple choice edition? -ph

Guidelines

1. No Libel.

2. Must be morally upright.

3. No profanity.

4. Exemptions must be registered.

5. All comments must serve the One True Purpose of the wiki.

6. Violators will be fistulated.

2008-05-22 14:04:00   Perhaps you must phrase all comments in the form of a question? :-)

—IDoNotExist

2008-05-22 17:09:36   I would delete personal comments about the appearance of employees, but I guess that is considered bad form. I think one recent review from an anonymous poster deserves to be removed. —DonShor

2008-05-22 17:13:13   I changed my mind. I see no reason to put up with that kind of stuff here. If anyone disagrees with my edit, I'd be happy to discuss it here. —DonShor

—-I agree with your change of the unreasonable comments left about the appearance of employees. It has nothing to do with the business. In addition, it's repulsive that someone would write and think like that.

2008-05-29 12:44:04   Hi there. You guys are right that it was too harsh for me to comment on the girl's appearance. I was upset that she patronized me as if I were "stupid" to think someone would give me *a penny*.

As to EmilyTung's comment:

Saying that it is your opinion that a place of business is unwelcoming to you and that you suspect it may have something to do with your race is NOT libel. Are you are trying to say "Big Brother is Watching!"? Don't give us that BS and try to scare us, we don't live under some totalitarian regime where we can't voice opinions over a restaurant. Furthermore, saying that people are "idiots" because they suspect racism only makes you yourself look like an idiot. Racism exists to some degree in every individual, as has been shown studying the activation of the amygdala (a part of the brain involved in fear response) in response to pictures of people from similar and different racial backgrounds.

Talking about suing people for practicing free speech in a college town, you must have no shame. —Loccster

2008-07-23 19:06:44   Aaaaaarggghhh!!! "2008-07-22 18:32:42 I had horrible shopping experince there. I will never step into their store again. —belle"

—DonShor

2008-08-07 21:27:01   I think people really like to talk about free speech without taking into consideration of things such as "incitement, sedition, defamation, slander and libel, blasphemy, the expression of racial hatred, and conspiracy." But then again, most people that defend free speech only while they are the ones talking tend to be selfish in common day life. And yes, accusing someone of racist behavior on Davis Wiki is a form of slander and libel (depending on how you consider a wiki to be), which is something you can be sued for in this current state of government that we live in (note: there is a difference between "I believe that person is racist" and "that person is racist"). Commenting on a someone's appearance does not fall under any of these situations though. It is a point of view or opinion that can be stood by with pride as you defend the freedom of speech, however anyone that usually makes comments like this just makes him or herself look like an asshole. —SunjeetBaadkar