The relevance of legal certainty to the English Wikipedia

Concept

The relevance of legal certainty to the English Wikipedia

By Anonymous

An anonymous editor gave their thoughts on how they believe "the administration of this free encyclopedia is flawed, and how it may be fixed". See revision 842176683 for attribution. This was written in 2018, and found again on a spelunking expedition in the Signpost annals.

The German philosopher of law Gustav Radbruch is widely credited with popularising and emphasising the concept of legal certainty (from the German Rechtssicherheit). This concept means that everyone who is subject to a certain legal code must be able to know which actions of his are legal (under that code) and which are not. In my opinion, on our encyclopedia, this concept is grossly violated, and I hereby intend to show some of the problems that I perceive to occur, and to offer some ideas on how to solve them.

Quite regularly, an administrator of this encyclopedia may encounter a user that he finds, for whatever reason, unsympathetic. We all know that some people we just can't stand, be they politicians, lawyers, civil servants, chief executives or teachers, just to name a few. Now in the real world, this does not really have any consequences, because we (in many cases possibly quite fortunately) do not have the power to inflict any serious damage to these people. But in the online world, where whole human beings, valuable, special and equipped with their own unique emotional worlds, are disguised as mere non-impressive text-strings with an underscore, this situation changes dramatically. Here, an administrative clique that does not have any substantial legal training in any of its facets (neutrality, the suppression of personal preference, the evaluation of evidence, the reading skills required to understand complex legal codes) or any substantial emotional fortification, decides on practically everything, in particular on user bans, the final version of articles and many more things. Isn't it strange, one asks, that admins basically never get blocked? Is this kind of immunity really implied by the rules of Wikipedia? Why, further, may administrators institute arbitrary blocks against people they themselves have a problem with? Have we not created a clique of overly powerful, nonconstructive superusers who, by aggressively having their way, shoo away large chunks of the Wikipedia community who, in real life, expect from their fellow humans a just and fair treatment and therefore are unable to deal with the realities of day-to-day Wikipedia work?

I have compiled a list of suggestions that may improve the situation as described.

It is crucial that administrators be elected only for a certain term duration. There is a reason why this is done in real politics.
Users that have been blocked should, by and large, be able to participate in the elections of the administrators, so that administrators cannot simply block users whom they worry might vote against their nomination.
One could think about making user groups, so that for each user group, there is one responsible admin. These usergroups would be formed randomly and have a fixed size (eg. 50 users), and only the users in this group vote for the admin responsible for them.
There should be no immunity for admins. Admins should be held to the same standards as any other user. In particular, administrators must not form "alliances" that serve the purpose of bullying down a perceived outgroup while at the same time ignoring any misbehaviour that occur in their ranks.
There should be a committee that reviews admin misbehaviour. Whatever is in place, it's not working. It is a statistical impossibility that admins are just so much nicer than the average person that they never get blocked. This committee should have the power to reverse malicious admin decisions, as well as de-admin administrators that have misbehaved. There are several such committees, but in my opinion, they do not operate effectively, since they don't monitor the admins, but rather only act on request. They also may be unknown to many users.
Administrators should, under all circumstances, be made to follow the guidelines precisely, word for word, so that certainty of law becomes available.
The value of free speech, which is a cornerstone of the ethics behind the Wikipedia project, should be upheld in the strongest possible fashion.

← Previous "Concept"

Next "Concept" →

In this issue

28 November 2022 (all comments)

Disinformation report

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

How did this anonymous, evidenceless rant make it into the Signpost? Was it ever published? I was unable to find it in a quick perusal of the 2018 archive TOCs. If it was not published, I can imagine why not, but it would be useful to see the 2018 deliberation around it. I have had my problems with admins in the past, but I have found most of them to be helpful and even-keeled. The writer should have considered whether they had the cause and effect wrong: perhaps administrators get blocked infrequently because the sort of person who is likely to get blocked is very unlikely to be given administrator rights. Also, the writer of this essay clearly didn't frequent enough drama boards, where administrators are often chided and sometimes desysopped for their transgressions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am not blaming any of the hard-working volunteers here at the Signpost; having briefly been one in the past, I know that every issue is a massive amount of work. I am curious, however, about the editorial process, if any, that rejected this piece in 2018 and accepted it for this issue. Having poked around a bit and been unable to find information, I thought I would ask here, which seemed like the logical place. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-signed. I am also curious about the editorial journey this one took. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: The people to blame for this being published are here. It isn't so much that I disagree with this drivel, it's that it's drivel. A suggestion to the "editors": if you don't have anything of quality to add to a Signpost section, don't add anything that month. Any editorial decision based on "let's do it!" is not an editorial decision, it's laziness. Kudos to Eddie891, apparently the editor back in 2018 (sorry, I should probably check), for having the judgment to mark it "not ready". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Drivel is mild, it's also ignorant. Monitor Admins? Some group of editors (presumably made up of Admins if it's going to have any power) has to spend their time watching the contributions of 1000 Admins? And "User groups", what in the world is that supposed to mean? Who would be in these groups? What would be done about IPs? How would we pick the Admins? How would we make sure they were active? Why in the world would anyone think this could work? I've seen a lot of uninformed unworkable proposals on Wikipedia, but this tops the list. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I was not the editor, but fairly involved with publication at the time, if memory serves. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As always, dissatisfied readers can request a refund of their full purchase price from The Signpost circulation department. Or, alternatively, they can become contributors and/or editors. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess you're immune from criticism, then, unless it is coming from people who want to become contributors or editors. How convenient. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why this was even published. I have stood up for The Signpost in the past, back when a certain editor wanted the entire leadership sanctioned, but when I see things like this published I wonder why I bothered. If you want drivel and rants published, just ask me - I'll at least sign my name to them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also count myself among the (silent majority?) of Signpost defenders (or apologists). I usually find something interesting or something to like about a Signpost article. This one is testing me and I'm found wanting. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready then and now. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be honest: This is AI-generated text, the product of a machine-learning model trained on 15 years of why-I'm-leaving-Wikipedia rants, right? Impressive work. The model gets so many things right—the sententious window dressing ("from the German Rechtssicherheit..."), the word salad (what is "emotional fortification", and where do I get some?), the just-asking-questions conceit, the invocation of "free speech" as a thought-terminating cliche... :P MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well played, friend. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying we can now expect AI trolls? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just baffled that the Signpost editors decided to publish an article that had been rejected 4 years before, by an anonymous editor. Aside from it being poorly written, it's reflective of a single person's mindset from....four years ago? Really? Signpost can't persuade anyone to write an opinion piece reflecting the 2022 realities? That's kind of sad. Risker (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I'm of the view that I don't have to agree with an article for it to be worth publishing. And I feel the delay of four years somewhat helps this article by separating it from whatever the inciting events were. Do you need to follow its advice? Of course not: Articles like this that advocate for a change in policy or its application should never be seen as more than a start to a debate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 05:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this piece would spark an interesting discussion so I'm surprised to see the backlash. I am seemingly in agreement with all that the piece is wrong, but I think identifying why and where it is wrong is worthwhile. To me, it's the level of power that it assumes administrators have. Admins should only be acting to enforce decisions made by the community—in obvious cases that leaves room for a level of judgement ("trolls should be blocked" gives precedent for an admin to identify a user as an obvious troll and blocked) and in non-obvious cases it doesn't (applying BLP to a contested piece of text by protecting the article on the admin's preferred version). Another is its idealist (rather than materialist) outlook: rules on Wikipedia should not be made with fairness to users in mind, but with what practically creates the best environment for producing a high-quality encyclopedia. "Free speech" is not a value here, nor is "fairness"—if you're wasting volunteer labour without progressing our mission then you can either leave of your own accord or get blocked. That's why we take a very narrow approach to what is allowed on talk pages (removing discussion-like comments) and even in userspace. — Bilorv (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's undoubtedly much wrong with the system, but this article's author totally failed to nail it. Was it worth (re)publishing? Barely. Let's move on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The response here, jumping on the Signpost editors for merely re-publishing the column, demonstrates the validity of the concerns expressed therein. Not only do these editors object to reasonable on-point discussions, they object to meta-discussions. That's one way to avoid addressing the issues raised. Fabrickator (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, admins are held to the same standards as anyone else. If anything, a bit higher: an admin's behavior is much more likely to be a topic of broad discussion than that of a random user.
There are plenty of places, including in actual government, where lifetime appointments subject to recall are the norm.
Vague talk of cabals on the Internet isn't worth the paper it (isn't) written on.
Hyper-legalism is a troll's paradise. - Jmabel | Talk 22:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In these comments, we have the prima facie evidence why reform is needed. Those elevated to positions of authority are so convinced of their own righteousness, that they scorn those who dare say otherwise. To be neutral, we must thoughtfully consider the opinions of those we disagree with. Not only to be fair, but also to evaluate our own position to ensure it isn't we who are in error. Senator2029 【talk】 03:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explore Wikipedia history by browsing The Signpost archives.

Home

About