This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. JocastaBot (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:New page on Fandom's anti-discrimination policy
In order to help the Wookieepedia community better understand and follow the anti-discrimination portion of Fandom's Terms of Use and to make clear that this is a Fandom-wide policy that also applies locally on our wiki, the Wookieepedia Administration, WP: Project Pride, and WP: Project Women, in consultation with Fandom staff, have put together a page highlighting the policy so that it can easily be found on site.
It can be found here
A table of definitions and further reading has been included to aid those unfamiliar with any of the terms used and to enable those curious to do further research. It's important that the Wookieepedia community make clear that that this kind of discrimination has no place here, and we hope this is a step toward making this a safer and more welcoming space within the Star Wars fandom. If you feel that an essential further reading source is missing from the glossary, please reach out to the Administration and it will be taken into consideration for inclusion. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
- I've mentioned this in the discord server, but I just want to state as part of the official record that I believe that instituting this without community approval goes far beyond the authority of the site's administrators. Wookieepedia definitely needs an anti-discrimination policy, but that policy should be discussed and voted upon by the community like every other one. It greatly concerns me that something this important would be implemented without any chance for community feedback. (And before someone says it, this is not just something created by fandom. The policy contains quotes from fandom's ToU, but it contains other content chosen by the administrators and the administrators alone. I support the content of the policy. But I also think that it's absolutely inappropriate that it was implemented without consensus. VergenceScatter (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- When WP:WOMEN pushed for this, we really, really didn't want it to go to a vote, because basic rights should never be up for debate. Didn't the deadnaming vote teach the community that? Real human people matter more than 'consensus', actually! The admins did consult with WP:WOMEN and WP:PRIDE to pick the links and the wording of the definitions. Many of these are such simple definitions there's not really any other options, and for ones that may be a little more nuanced, I'm sure that if you contact the administration, they'll be willing to hear suggestions for word changes! Anti-discrimination policy is something Wook has been ignoring for a long time, and putting it to a vote would just feel like a continuation of the attitude that the opinions of people who are not the minorities protected by this matters more than the actual protecting. Dropbearemma
(she/her) 08:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC) - I think there's a misunderstanding of how organisations, including volunteer organisations such as Wookieepedia, work. The admin, as elected representatives of Wookieepedia, have been entrusted, as a group, to take action and make decisions on behalf of the wider user group. And it was made clear that if there are any improvements to be made, to contact admin. You said there was no community feedback when it was clear that there was such feedback and consultation. The admin group consulted with impacted groups of users to ensure accuracy and completeness as much as possible, as well as appropriateness and it was fit-for-purpose.
This is also a localised version of Fandom's ToU, so this isn't new—anything additional is to provide clarity and specificity for our community but nothing exceeds the ToU. Not every single thing should be voted on—this increases the red tape and slows progress down, and there are clear guidelines on how to revert things the community disagrees with in those cases that doesn't happen. This is akin to saying that ANY change to a template should be voted upon, which would prevent the improvement and helpfulness of templates, not to mention slow down fixes when there is a problem. Likewise, this policy, which doesn't change anything, doesn't need to be voted upon to be enforced or published. Because these "rules" could be enforced previously, but this provides clear guidelines for the community. Further, a vote for human rights is inherently damaging to the rights of those it supports. As a real-life example, the vote for the human right of same-sex marriage in Australia was damaging and hurtful to many in the LGBTI community even though it passed. Previous votes of this nature, such as the deadnaming one, have been extremely damaging and hurtful to the community as a whole, specific editors who were targeted on social media, our image, the list goes on. A vote for this policy would not be seen as a "is this the right wording?", but a "does Wookieepedia support basic human rights?."
Now if you disagree with the authority the admins have in creating policies of this nature (again it doesn't affect how we edit or behave) you are more than welcome to bring it to a CT for community vote. If you disagree or have a suggestion for better wording or a new link, the open that for discussion. But an application of the sort of "decisions should be made with everyone's input" would be detrimental to everyone. Imagine having to vote on every social media post and comment. Every edit. If we don't trust our admin, then vote to remove them.
As for the policy, I think it's perfectly worded and everyone who contributed should be very proud of themselves for such a top notch job they've done! Manoof (he/him/his)
08:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Administrators are often seen as community leaders, with users turning to them for advice and information, but they are not imbued with any special authority and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility." per Wookieepedia:Administrators. While I don't think this particular issue needs to necessarily be voted on, as it is basically a restament of Fandom's ToU and that voting would cause issues as has been brought up above, I think this idea of "The admin, as elected representatives of Wookieepedia, have been entrusted, as a group, to take action and make decisions on behalf of the wider user group." is wrong, and that admins can't generally instate policy without consensus. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk)
- Just to be clear, I and to my knowledge all other administrators totally agree that we can't instate new policy without consensus and would never do so. This page doesn't instate any new policy at all, it is merely offering guidance on an existing Fandom policy that applies locally as well. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that this is just a annotation of Fandom policy, so I have nothing against this particlar policy being instated without a vote. However, this page is in Category:Policies on Wookieepedia, so could be thought of as a "new policy" that was "created" without consent. As long as this is a one time exeption to "new policies" created without consent, there there is no issue. My main point in the comment above was that administrators cannot in general "take action" to implement new policy without consent. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Indeed. I have nothing against creation of this page, as it's basically an annotated excerpt of Fandom's ToU, which applies to all wikis, so it's not creating a new policy or changing an existing one. However, admins have absolutely no right to unilaterally create any new policy, or modify existing policies. I somewhat agree with the conserns about voting on certain issues, but we have two ways of creating policy: community consensus via CT, or Fandom's authority. If admins enacted a completely new policy after only consulting a select group of users, it would undermine the power of the community and seem like a cabal. But as I said, I have nothing against this specific page, because it's not creating any new policy. 01miki10 Open comlink 17:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- The administration is in full agreement with miki and ThrawnChiss. Had any actual change in policy been brought about by this, there would have been a vote, as is required but as is also proper. We know our limits as determined by the community and do not wish to exceed them. MasterFred
(talk) (he/him) 20:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- The administration is in full agreement with miki and ThrawnChiss. Had any actual change in policy been brought about by this, there would have been a vote, as is required but as is also proper. We know our limits as determined by the community and do not wish to exceed them. MasterFred
- Just to be clear, I and to my knowledge all other administrators totally agree that we can't instate new policy without consensus and would never do so. This page doesn't instate any new policy at all, it is merely offering guidance on an existing Fandom policy that applies locally as well. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Administrators are often seen as community leaders, with users turning to them for advice and information, but they are not imbued with any special authority and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility." per Wookieepedia:Administrators. While I don't think this particular issue needs to necessarily be voted on, as it is basically a restament of Fandom's ToU and that voting would cause issues as has been brought up above, I think this idea of "The admin, as elected representatives of Wookieepedia, have been entrusted, as a group, to take action and make decisions on behalf of the wider user group." is wrong, and that admins can't generally instate policy without consensus. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk)
- When WP:WOMEN pushed for this, we really, really didn't want it to go to a vote, because basic rights should never be up for debate. Didn't the deadnaming vote teach the community that? Real human people matter more than 'consensus', actually! The admins did consult with WP:WOMEN and WP:PRIDE to pick the links and the wording of the definitions. Many of these are such simple definitions there's not really any other options, and for ones that may be a little more nuanced, I'm sure that if you contact the administration, they'll be willing to hear suggestions for word changes! Anti-discrimination policy is something Wook has been ignoring for a long time, and putting it to a vote would just feel like a continuation of the attitude that the opinions of people who are not the minorities protected by this matters more than the actual protecting. Dropbearemma
- Anyway, thank you to the administration for listening to us and working with us to make anti-discrimination policies clearer on wook, which is a really important step towards making wook a safer place for minorities to be. It's a really promising step that shows that the era of the previous administration has ended, and that this administration is committed to recognising prior failings and correcting them. Dropbearemma
(she/her) 21:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC) - To highlight the section of Wookieepedia:Administrators that ThrawnChiss7 quoted with a change in bolding, this falls into "Administrators are often seen as community leaders, with users turning to them for advice and information, but they are not imbued with any special authority and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibilities." This content provides users with advice and information from people who are seen as community leaders; it's not admins wielding authority we don't have to instate a new policy or change an existing one. Manoof is right that we are "entrusted, as a group, to take action and make decisions on behalf of the wider user group"--those decisions being about applying existing policy and taking actions that follow from it. This is akin to Wookieepedia:Welcome, newcomers and the tutorials within, which include information and advice about how Wookieepedia works. With some people misunderstanding the anti-discrimination document based on having "policy" in the name, I suggest we rename it to better reflect its content and purpose. Immi Thrax (she/her) 21:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- While the discussion on discord yesterday did lead to it being renamed to make it clear that it was Fandom's policy and not Wook's, I would be very hesitant about removing "policy" entirely or replacing it with "guidelines" - this is just as binding as policy, although it comes from a different place. Perhaps Guidelines on Fandom's anti-discrimination policy, or if we really must take policy out, replace it with Terms of Use? Given the serious potential consequences of breaking it, I would want us to be really clear about its importance. Dropbearemma (she/her) 21:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- The page's current title reflects that it's indeed concerning Fandom's anti-discrimination policy. Fandom, whether the Wook wishes for it to be or not, has their ToU as hard-set rules—not just guidelines. For that reason, I would be against removing the word "policy" from the page's titling for accuracy reasons. That said, fantastic work! I'm happy to see this listed on the Wook—a place many of us love dearly and will continue to love. In order to make it safer for future Wookieepedians to never feel marginalized, I look forward to the future strides we can take for a better and brighter wiki.—spookywillowwtalk 22:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- While the discussion on discord yesterday did lead to it being renamed to make it clear that it was Fandom's policy and not Wook's, I would be very hesitant about removing "policy" entirely or replacing it with "guidelines" - this is just as binding as policy, although it comes from a different place. Perhaps Guidelines on Fandom's anti-discrimination policy, or if we really must take policy out, replace it with Terms of Use? Given the serious potential consequences of breaking it, I would want us to be really clear about its importance. Dropbearemma
