BoyWiki:Agora/26 November 2015

Agora/26 November 2015

Hoopla over using BoyChat material at BoyWiki

A post at BC proposes "a section on BoyWiki listing interesting posts from Boychat", specifying "long and unique posts that could be saved and maybe categorized". Which is a good idea that I have recently also mentioned (here and here). Now, this comes quite unexpectedly to me, but there seems to be some deep-seated resistance towards this, perhaps out of privacy concerns, copyright considerations (as it were) or perhaps even outright hostility and distrust against BoyWiki and its contributors. How should we approach this issue in the most constructive manner? __meco (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Address the copyright concerns and then just go ahead and start copying the content over here. I'm not sure whom we need to talk to, to get the copyright concerns addressed, but this has come up at MetaBoyChat before, and maybe it's time to open a new thread there. Etenne, what do you think? Lysander (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea that will never get off the ground because no one will ever devote the amount of time necessary to see it through. --Etenne (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I cannot believe that. Are people of the community so incredibly lazy and self-obsessed that a sufficient number of people willing to work with this is blatantly unlikely, as you clearly suggest? Or does it hark back to suspicion and disagreement with the way BoyWiki is run? __meco (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I will let you decide that for yourself --Etenne (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we come up with a statement of consent to republication that will make it possible to repost BoyChat posts here? People would need to consent to have their content reposted everywhere, not just on BoyWiki, for it to be compatible with BoyWiki:Copyrights. I guess I'll get the ball rolling by stating, "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify all of my BoyChat posts under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts." Lysander (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure I can answer that as it seems to me to be more a question for the admin staff of BoyChat.--Etenne (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean the "admin staff"? I see one person with extended permissions editing this wiki: YOU. What is this clandestine cabal of remote personages whom we as active users are apparently supposed to humbly revere and await the edicts of? I'm more than a little flustered by this, coming from the Wikimedia community (and also another wiki) where users discuss what changes could, should and will be made. I mean, it's not like there isn't a framework and higher officials enforcing that framework at those other wikis, but it's certainly not like what seems to be how things are done here where issues being proposed are routinely referred to some unaccountable, anonymous body of controllers. I know I'm pretty new here, but I find this highly suspect. __meco (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The WMF is the same way. When you get ArbCom-banned without a formal ArbCom case being opened, there's no community discussion. In fact, the block comment will say that all discussions should be by the private ArbCom email list. When you get SanFran banned (as you and I were), the matter is not open for community discussion either. Nor was Wikipedia's child protection policy enacted by community discussion; rather, it was imposed by Jimbo, and it's kept in its current form by Alison, who usually declines to discuss the merits of it.

On BoyWiki, usually we only hear of the wiki council's discussions or actions through Etenne. They don't post their email archives, or even the minutes of their discussions, anywhere for us to see. This is what organizations do when they're afraid of the legal consequences of being transparent. Whether this actually works to reduce legal liability is debatable. Lysander (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Minutes of the Wiki Council: Etenne is currently fighting against making BoyWiki completely anonymous so users can't see the user names of the other users making edits. I am not making any friends by doing this and I am getting blasted by you and blasted by them... and still I go on, some days more merrily then others..... --Etenne (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from that discussion,

The second part of my post was a (small) manifestation of my tiredness and bitterness about the total lack of action concerning the personal security of our contributors.

In the beginning, we thought that BoyWiki could have the same rules and ways of functioning as Wikipedia, with everything overt and visible for everybody. We must never forget that in reality, we are hunted pariahs, treated as the worst criminals; that our fates and lives are in constant danger; and that the security of each of us can depend on an infuriated anti, a vicious traitor, a madman in crisis, or an obstinate investigator.

That's why we need to be as cautious and invisible as members of a resistance movement during a war. Tracing what one of us does and writes must be impossible.

It seems that the only way to fulfill this is to make all "signatures" in BoyWiki invisible—except for the administrators, naturally. (If there is another way, it can be discussed—but I doubt it.)

Any venue that attempts to foist anonymity upon me has seen the last of me. And please note, Etenne, my frustration is not, and has not (I believe) been directed at you. I very much appreciate your dedication. __meco (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we already have an article on this (gender bias issue)

When I read this post at BC I figured it would be a very valuable thing to collate such stories from from both the male and female adult side and compare the reactions. We could start out by simply collecting the evidence and then as the material increased we could give it some analysis. Also, I'm sure there must exist some analyses of this complex already, and that should also going into this article as soon as it got dug up. The stark opposite to that woman/boy story would be this, I presume. A focus of the article would have to, in my opinion, also be homophobia and androphobia/misandry. __meco (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)