Edit filter log

'{{essay}} == Critical essay about the Community health initiative == === Stanford prison effect === ''Prima facia'', the Community health initiative ("CHI") places a substantial burden on Wikipedia administrators to both investigate<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative#Evaluating|title=Community health initiative - Meta|website=meta.wikimedia.org|language=en|access-date=2018-08-05}}</ref> and enforce<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative#Policy_Growth_&_Enforcement|title=Community health initiative - Meta|website=meta.wikimedia.org|language=en|access-date=2018-08-05}}</ref> anti-harassment policies on the Wikipedia project. However, as demonstrated by the Stanford prison experiment those who perceive themselves to be in positions of authority are likely to abuse it, especially in the absence of effective oversight from higher level authorities<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:fUaYklWdvMgJ:scholar.google.com/+stanford+prison+experiment&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5|title=STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT|last=Teacher|website=scholar.googleusercontent.com|access-date=2018-08-05}}</ref>. The entire CHI proposal assumes that administrators will not themselves be the individuals discharging harassing behaviours. The proposal does not set out what a Wikipedia user with a grievance against an administrator, who may abuse their position of authority, can do to represent their complaints and seek a remedy; thus creating an impression that there are no ways for the reasonable person to believe that they may seek redress for abuse of power. This also strengthens the perception of unfettered authority in those that seek to abuse it.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hodson|first=Randy|last2=Roscigno|first2=Vincent J.|last3=Lopez|first3=Steven H.|date=2006-11-01|title=Chaos and the Abuse of Power, Chaos and the Abuse of Power: Workplace Bullying in Organizational and Interactional Context, Workplace Bullying in Organizational and Interactional Context|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888406292885|journal=Work and Occupations|language=en|volume=33|issue=4|pages=382–416|doi=10.1177/0730888406292885|issn=0730-8884}}</ref> === Absence of victim support provisions === Finkelhor et al. (2000) found 31% of online users reported being very or extremely upset, 19% were very or extremely afraid, and 18% were very or extremely embarrassed by online harassment. Ybarra (2004) discovered a positive relationship between electronic bullying and clinical depression. On the extreme side of the scale electronic bullying can be a predominant factor in suicide<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Raskauskas|first=Juliana|last2=Stoltz|first2=Ann D.|date=May 2007|title=Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17484571|journal=Developmental Psychology|volume=43|issue=3|pages=564–575|doi=10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.564|issn=0012-1649|pmid=17484571}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoff|first=Dianne L.|last2=Mitchell|first2=Sidney N.|date=2009-08-14|title=Cyberbullying: causes, effects, and remedies|url=https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/09578230910981107?journalCode=jea|journal=Journal of Educational Administration|language=en|volume=47|issue=5|pages=652–665|doi=10.1108/09578230910981107|issn=0957-8234}}</ref>. This suggests that those who are subject to electronic harassment are likely to need emotional support after an incident; however, the CHI proposal doesn't contain any provisions which help victims of harassment and bullying on Wikipedia find a pathway to assistance with treatment or management of the potential harm. This creates a reactionary system which does little to address the negative impact of bullying on users. === Isolation and internalisation of abuse regulation === Those who experience harassment which causes them distress generally have the right to report it to the relevant policing authorities. In many countries, including the United Kingdom, there are robust systems in place to deal with harassment which include the provision of support services<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/stalking-and-harassment|title=Stalking and Harassment {{!}} The Crown Prosecution Service|website=www.cps.gov.uk|language=en|access-date=2018-08-05}}</ref>. Using established judicial procedures mitigates the risk of a Stanford prison effect due to the higher oversight on multiple levels within these systems. However, the CHI proposal does not mention the creation of machinery that would engage with legitimate judicial process and predicates a system of "internal abuse regulation" similar to that seen deployed by the Roman Catholic Church in response to high levels of abuse of children from amongst its membership<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_3gTDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=ooF_nr4HEv&dq=abuse%20regulation%20roman%20catholic%20church&lr&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q=handling%20of%20abuse&f=false|title=Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Gender, Power, and Organizational Culture|last=Keenan|first=Marie|date=2013-07-18|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780199328970|language=en}}</ref>. === Moving the burden of proof === {{Quote|text=A new harassment reporting system that doesn't place the burden of proof on or further alienate victims of harassment|source=Community health initiative, reporting}} To those well versed in law, a statement which advocates a shift in the burden to prove innocence for a criminal offence such as harassment onto the accused is alarming. In fact, there is a concept of ''ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat'' (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”) that is enshrined into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. === The issue of defining harassment === Harassment, in most jurisdictions, is a criminal offence especially when it causes alarm or distress. As a result of this, there are various sources of law dependent on jurisdiction which define what constitutes harassment. For there to be order in the enforcement of Wikipedia harassment policies, the term itself must first be unambiguously defined. The question as to who or what defines the term is very important, establishing an interpretation that is exclusive to the application of Wikipedia policy creates the risk of Wikipedia moving from an encyclopedia to a non-authoritative dictionary, even a pseudo-court. If the interpretation is to be sought elsewhere, then the question as to where becomes relevant, will it be from British Case Law, US Case Law, a literal definition provided for by Collins Dictionary etc? === Risk of becoming a pseudo-court === As mentioned above, for Wikipedia to undertake in self-regulating with regard to harassment then it must first place itself in an authority to define the term itself or select which outside source to use. It will then be incumbent on Administrators to apply an interpretation of harassment when deciding if a person is guilty of it or not, thus becoming judges as to if a person has committed a criminal offence. While no competent Court would accept the judgement of a Wikipedia Administrator in determining the guilt of an alleged offender, it still risks creating an impression to Wikipedia users that its administrators exercise excessive powers which extend into ruling regarding criminal matters. === Putting Administrators at risk === Another important element which seems to have been omitted from the Community Health Initiative proposal is how Wikipedia Administrators may be protected from the harm inflicted against them as a form of revenge for undertaking their duties regarding harassment. The World Wide Web is a vast expanse which exists beyond, below, around and above Wikipedia and those who conduct harassment against others online have access to all manner of tools which can be utilized when attacking another person. The wise Administrator would be all too aware of this and that knowledge itself may influence their decisions when and if to act, especially when there are no systems of protection to fall back on. Those who have discharged serious harassing behaviors have demonstrated ''mens rea'' and ''actus rea'' in committing a criminal offence and there is little to nothing preventing that same person escalating the severity of their criminality, especially when on a platform which proposes internal solutions to resolving the conduct which does little more than offer the deterrent of a ban from Wikipedia. Where there are ineffective deterrents and lack of systems of higher oversight it may give rise to feelings of impunity, this can present itself in those at all levels on the Wikipedia project. For example, when there is a Wikipedia user discharging harassing behaviours against another Wikipedia user the only deterrent offered under the CHI proposal is the prospect of a ban from the project. If due to the lack of higher oversight set out in the proposal, the user can evade a realistic prospect of a ban then they will act with impunity and render the deterrent completely ineffective. Furthermore, the question arises if a prospective ban were enough of a deterrent on its own, why would there still be the issue of harassment which is so prevalent as to necessitate initiatives regarding it? === References === {{Reflist}} === Further reading === * Phenomena of power: authority, domination, and violence by ''[[Heinrich Popitz|H Popitz]]''.'