LocalWiki/Private messaging

Some of this discussion was moved from Identity/Talk

I put this in as a feature request on the new localwiki, but now thinking it could provide some solution to this issue as well. I've had some very useful offline conversations with a few editors during some of the more recent wiki blow-ups, (these were with people who've posted contact information on their profiles), and it was nice because it allowed for both direct personal interactions, and privacy. While posting contact info is probably much less viable than getting everyone to use their real-name, I think a private message system on daviswiki could be helpful.

Private messaging could allow people to remain anonymous to the overall wiki, but engage in private conversation with other editors to discuss personal issues, identities, privacy concerns, etc; if so inclined. PMing would provide a more realistic farmers market scenario, i.e. you wouldn't have to share your name with everyone you meet, but if you thought someone was cool and wanted to get to know them better, you could do so via private message. Similarly, if a ski-mask wearing editor is upset about their service at the popsicle stand, you could send them a private message and try and find out if they are just being trolls or if their face was actually, legitimately cold. Additionally, if someone really wanted to retain their privacy, but wanted to provide some legitimacy to a more critical edit, they could private message a editor they feel is trustworthy and see if they would vouch for them (this is done quite frequently on reddit). In fact, I think Tom did something similar with the Taxi talk page a couple weeks ago. A driver was accused of having DUI's and Art privately emailed driving/insurance records to Tom, who then backed up Art. Art was able to protect his drivers privacy, and the accusations were knocked down a good bit when Tom backed him up.

This would of course mean more work for the localwiki team, (sorry, not trying to be unappreciative, guys. I think you've already done a metric shit-ton of great work), but just throwing it out there. There's probably some other concerns too (fostering a behind-the-scenes paranoia, inner-circle stuff, etc), but might be worth thinking about. —JeffTolentino

• Some of us have been asking for this for some time... it would also help solve the problem of it being hard to get the attention of new editors in order to communicate with them. —CovertProfessor
• One thing I like about DavisWiki is that there is no PM. The was valuable to me because I am socially inept, and only from this do I learn how real human beings interact with other real human beings to resolve conflicts. It is only through this that I establish trust that the editors are acting in good faith, and have high moral integrity. Without it, these values are lost for me. I could not speak for the experience of others, so this is just one sample point. The loss (I would face) might be justifiable for the potential benefit of being more inclusive. If there is a PM feature, may I ask how this would be resolved: Suppose A is an anonymous user, who wrote something, that B, a real name user found objective. In the old days, B would post publicly (either on the page being edited or on A's user page). In the new days, B would have to send a PM to A, because by default, B cannot assume that A would not be offended. The question is this: When A receives that PM from B, could A still opt to discuss the issue in public? According to our logic, the change in the policy is to protect A. But if A chooses to waive that protection, would A opt to discuss in public just like the old days? The second question is this: Suppose it is the policy that A could opt to discuss in public, when I receive a PM, how do I tell if I am A or B? How do I know that I have the right to opt to speak in public? Suppose I ask B, but B said that he is actually A and I have to protect his privacy. At that point, what am I suppose to do if I feel that I am a victim of oppression, targeted by B? About half a year ago, I was on another forum where the moderators asked me to continue a discussion through PM, I agreed, with the condition that they need to publicly acknowledge the questions I asked them. They never made that public acknowledgement and in their PM replies they never cited any questions I made. Then effectively, if you look at history of their replies, you could claim that the list of questions were never made, thus by doing so, they have both censored information and falsified history. The chilling problem is that the issue that was discussed was not enough of great importance that would affect people's lives, and nothing was at stake other than saving faces. However, if the tool for censorship could corrupt people at such small scale to save face, how do you ensure that people are not would keep their integrity when their lives are at stake? I am not against PM, but I think power and options could corrupt people. I want to know whether A could still opt to discuss in public and how that could work in the policy. If power could corrupt good people, before you attain that power, you need to setup traps to catch yourself in case you do get corrupted, while you are still uncorrupted. If you have seen good people becoming corrupted, and you are not arrogant enough to believe that you are a saint, then this is the kind of things you worry about. —EdgarWai

EW: I appreciate your response. My thoughts below are in italics —JeffTolentino

Suppose A is an anonymous user, who wrote something, that B, a real name user found objective. In the old days, B would post publicly (either on the page being edited or on A's user page). In the new days, B would have to send a PM to A, because by default, B cannot assume that A would not be offended. The question is this: When A receives that PM from B, could A still opt to discuss the issue in public?

Sure. The wiki would still be an open forum. B wouldn't even have to send a PM to A in the first place. PMing would just provide the option to reach out privately if B or A wanted to.

According to our logic, the change in the policy is to protect A. But if A chooses to waive that protection, would A opt to discuss in public just like the old days?

Yes. It would be up to A and B to respond whatever way they felt was appropriate.

Suppose I ask B, but B said that he is actually A and I have to protect his privacy. At that point, what am I suppose to do if I feel that I am a victim of oppression, targeted by B?

I'm actually a little confused about what your are asking here. Are you saying if you find out about a separate anonymous account that a realname user uses, do you need to respect their privacy? And what happens if they start harassing you on either account? If that's what you're asking, then I guess the answer would still be up to you. If they weren't harassing you, it would look pretty lame on your part to reveal a secret made in confidence to the rest of the wiki for no apparent reason. If they were harassing you, the fact that you knew about their alternate account would allow you some advantage if things get ugly. If you do reveal it, I suppose they could still deny it, but in the long run, I don't think this scenario has much advantage over the current situation. People already do talk offline here when contact information is available, and people have been both respectful with offline info and spilled the beans on each other. The PM option would just allow people an alternative to posting private contact info online.

About half a year ago, I was on another forum where the moderators asked me to continue a discussion through PM, I agreed, with the condition that they need to publicly acknowledge the questions I asked them. They never made that public acknowledgement and in their PM replies they never cited any questions I made. Then effectively, if you look at history of their replies, you could claim that the list of questions were never made, thus by doing so, they have both censored information and falsified history. The chilling problem is that the issue that was discussed was not enough of great importance that would affect people's lives, and nothing was at stake other than saving faces. However, if the tool for censorship could corrupt people at such small scale to save face, how do you ensure that people are not would keep their integrity when their lives are at stake?

If this happened on DW, I suppose you could still go back to the public forum and say 'I tried to resolve this by PM, but such and such happened and none of the problems I'm concerned about were dealt with adequately.' Sure, there is no public record of the PM conversation, but by bringing your concerns back into the public forum, whoever you were having a problem with in the first place would be publicly confronted with not solving the problem privately and the interaction would continue from there. It actually sounds like the key difference with that situation, however, was that the forum you were on was moderated, whereas DW is not moderated, (I guess JW and PN have some power to ban spammers, but I think both of them have pretty good records regarding that privilege). Nobody else can censor any of the public statements on DW. Things do get removed, but there is always a record in the edit history, and you can always revert or redit something if you still have a problem with something. Really, I'd want everyone to be accountable in public for what they say all the time, but my intent with the PM proposal is to address the privacy issues that AFB and CP are bringing up here, i.e. how can we facilitate accountability and privacy at the same time.

I want to know whether A could still opt to discuss in public and how that could work in the policy.

Yeah, anyone could still discuss whatever they want in public. You couldn't force somebody else to respond in public, but you can't really do that now anyway.

If power could corrupt good people, before you attain that power, you need to setup traps to catch yourself in case you do get corrupted, while you are still uncorrupted. If you have seen good people becoming corrupted, and you are not arrogant enough to believe that you are a saint, then this is the kind of things you worry about.

I don't think having the ability to PM gives anyone a whole lot of power. You can still air you grievances publicly if you want. PMing would just let people who are worried about privacy, a chance to provide proof of accountability to editors they trust. Its not going to solve every problem, but it could be a useful tool for some people.

JT: Thank you for responding. One of the differences is between the forum I mentioned and DavisWiki, is that that other forum has no public edit record. If power could corrupt, the people would already have been corrupted. Therefore when I agree that the concerns above are resolved (in the way I see them). I don't have more concerns from my side against PM. Thank you for addressing it. —EdgarWai

• EdgarWai, again, I find everything you say to be amazing. I don’t have answers yet but your comments are inspiring to those ends. JeffTolentino, I like your suggestions, too. Accountability is an important issue, and I think Davisites have the capacity to find an innovative way to achieve this while getting more people involved. —ActionFigureBarbie
• A private messaging system is a bit dangerous. The community is a whole lot better if everyone can be involved in a discussion. By offering a private messaging system, people will actually use it—and if it is better than the comment bar (very easy to do), they will use it by default. Yes, there is sometimes a need for discussion of things in private, but it's not the common case and email will do. When to use private messages and when to use userpages... one more thing to teach newcomers. Oy. Of course, I also hate the WYSIWYG editor in sapling localwiki, so feel free to dismiss me as a stuck-in-his-ways old-timer. And I place a higher value on openness and transparency than most. —WilliamLewis
• I just want to say that I have similar thoughts about whether PM would make DavisWiki really quiet. But since I don't feel strongly whether PM would be for better or for worse, I will see whether that problem is addressed according to William. —EdgarWai
• from a technical standpoint a PM system is also something that can be abused by spammers / people up to no good Daubert a wise woman once taught me that less is more...
• I actually get tons on spam on my personal email account, and I've never gotten any PM spam through FB or Reddit. Part of the reason I don't post my personal email address here, is because I don't want more spam! A big part of me sympathizes with you less is more point, however. In a perfect world, I'd still advocate simply using your real name as the best solution, but AFB and CP have a number of good points and wanted to find a way to meet those too.—JeffTolentino