User:Geogre/IRC considered

Please help out. If I've missed any major advantages or disadvantages, let me know via the talk page, or just add them.

{From: User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles.)

1.	Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.
2.	Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".

Before we consider the best practices for the use of IRC channels associated with Wikipedia, we would do well to consider the limitations and possibilities inherent in the medium of IRC.

The medium

Advantages and disadvantages

Internet Relay Chat was developed, as its name states, as a chat mechanism. Therefore, IRC always has "chat" possibilities and "chat" limitations. An IRC channel is conceivably a room of people, most of them quiet but some chatting. So, let's consider the message of this medium.

1. Advantages:
   1. Immediacy: instant access to a large number of "lurking" and active people
   2. Informality: people can speak their minds freely
   3. Freedom: the conversations often veer off topic, exactly at the whim of the participants
   4. Exposure: people you "wouldn't meet" are there.
2. Disadvantages:
   1. Immediacy: haste is the enemy of deliberation ("festina lente" as the man said). IRC can mean bad decisions at twice the speed
   2. Informality: hyperbole, jokes, and sarcasm not only may be misunderstood but are misunderstood.
   3. Freedom: when the conversation moves with speaker desires, it is organized around the will and whim of the speakers rather than Wikipedia (i.e. IRC is always about the people, not the articles).
   4. Exposure: You can get quick help, and you can gather up a lynch mob at a moment's notice, and combined with Disad #1 and Disad #5, complicated issues are presented in reductive terms.
   5. Chatbytes: The chat client line length and buffer limits mean that it is impossible to develop an argument, and therefore all "discussion" is necessarily limited to chat-sized bites of words.
   6. Inherent corruption (in the medium):
      1. The statements made are not persistent (you can't store them and examine them later)
      2. The statements cannot be submitted as evidence on any RFAR
      3. The statements disappear immediately, and so a person "arriving" five minutes late will have no way to know what has been said.

Findings

IRC is meant to be social

IRC's strength is chat, and that has value. I enjoy chatting with people, but chat is, at bottom, a social matter. IRC allows for the creation of new social groups and allows Wikipedia's editors to socialize, both. However, the part of Wikipedia that is fundamentally, structurally served best by IRC is the social side (the Friendster side, as I say in my darker moods). When an IRC social nexus (a group of chatters) attempts to reason things out, the limitations of the medium frustrate them. It can be done (working out policy or guidelines), but it is twice as difficult to do it on IRC than in an essay like this one. This is made even worse by the fact that the social nexus is limited by whoever was in the "room at the time."

Let me explain that. IRC promises instant access to loads of folks, but, in fact, it offers access to a random group. If you want to work out a thought, you are limited to the few people who are talking at the time, because the lack of persistence means that anyone who "comes in" later has no idea of what you've been talking about. Because the medium has neither persistence nor portability, any person trying to actually articulate a position on IRC is whistling in the wind and fighting against the medium's own structure.

IRC's function is to create social opportunities and create social clusters.

IRC makes a world apart from Wikipedia

Additionally, there are dangers to IRC that are adherent to this function. IRC is social in its primary action. It creates societies and allows socializing. The danger is in the former. Regular users of IRC get to know each other, build up perceptions of each other, and then form favorable or unfavorable opinions of them based on their chatting behavior and their chatting profile. They will (not "can," but "will") extend these opinions onto the person's Wikipedia actions, and this is true of everyone on IRC. There have been cases of people who, in fact, had never edited Wikipedia who grew popular on IRC (and I can name them). It is also a commonplace that a person "is different" on IRC than on the project (I certainly am). It is also possible that a friend from IRC is doing something really awful on Wikipedia, and "you" might extend so much benefit of the doubt to this friendly person that you miss the fact that, on Wikipedia, her or his actions are dreadful. This is a danger of the chatted society.

The social world created on IRC is different from Wikipedia and therefore can act at odds to Wikipedia or in concert with it; it is a tangentially related world.

The "lensing effect" of IRC on votes

The lensing effect of IRC occurs in a two-fold sense. First, a popular or unpopular person on IRC can mention that his RFA is underway, and, based on that person's wonderfulness on IRC, a number of voters far in excess of those who monitor the RFA page or who have encountered the editor can and do show up to vote for or against the RFA. Having a big shadow on IRC translates therefore into having a big effect on Wikipedia, independently of any Wikipedia actions. This occurs as well with deletion arguments (particularly on categories and templates, where some of the biggest current names in IRC spend their time). Hugely inflated votes come in. Now, this is because of an informal, probably innocent, form of "spamming."

We disallow people from mass posting to talk pages to drum up votes, and yet five minutes on IRC can generate a larger number of votes than days on talk pages, and all without any persistence of the words (or accountability for them). I'm sure that this is innocent in intent, but it is very real in its effect. Either we are wrong to disallow "talk page spamming" or we are wrong in having IRC, because I cannot imagine a rule that might forbid IRC lensing in this sense.

The lensing effect of IRC on Wikipedia actions

The second lensing effect of IRC occurs simply from the bias of the first interpretation. A person in the channel will explain that Z is occurring, and others on the channel at the time will go to look, but they already have in mind that it is Z. Just as AfD asks people to assent that something should be deleted and therefore already limits the voters' mindsets to a Boolean yes/no, so an IRC call for action, especially from a regular, prejudices any investigation

Lensing a delete/undelete A channel will go along with banter, and then a new name to the channel will come in and say, "Can somebody please delete happyfuntime for me? The guy has been trolling for days." An administrator will go look at happyfuntime. Looks pretty bad. Boom, and it's gone. Notice what's missing from this? IRC "worked" to get quick action, but it failed because it got quick action. Was that an emergency deletion? Was there a reason not to use Speedy Deletion? Were there diffs for the "trolling?"

Lensing a block Let's suppose, instead, another case: A new name comes along and says, "UserX is being horribly incivil, and I'm sick of these personal attacks. Can anyone help me? Diff." Three or four people go to look at the diff. Now, when they look at it, they already know that it's a personal attack. They see a single line of text in the diff, and, by golly, that looks mean! Boom, the user is blocked. Good? Probably not. Suppose the diff showed X saying "Fuck off jerk." Well, that's nasty, but there is no context. What was being said before? Was there taunting? Violating the seven dirty words is all you need? What if the person above had been saying, "What words did I say that got you so mad" and X responded "Fuck off you jerk?" Well, now X is blocked, furious, and with cause, because his opponent went to IRC, and because he characterized the edit for you before you read it. He reduced your options from "Please investigate this" to "Confirm, yes or no, that this is mean." We're not supposed to block for that, of course, and you're unworthy of being an administrator if all you care about was that a user was mean, but, aside from that, you're just looking with the lens the IRC chat gave you.

The "don't be a jerk" phenomenon Because IRC chats are chat, are social, are friendly, there are two major limitations introduced by their social function. First, it is difficult to argue with anyone when you're chatting with them. Second, there is a peer pressure to "be nice." To explain this, let me ask you to imagine a cocktail party. Four people are in a cluster talking about how much of a clown the boss is. If you think that they're off base, that the boss is actually leading the group in a good direction, what do you do? If you go up to the cluster of chatting persons and say, "Hang on! I think he's making good points," you will first be rejected as an interloper. Second, you will find yourself opposed by the chatting cluster. However, third and most importantly, other people along the periphery of the room will keep silent. This is not because you are wrong, but because you are not "being nice." You are introducing "dissent." This is very like what happens on IRC when a chatting cluster has an opinion that is either inappropriate or controversial. If any person seeing it begins to correct them, that person will be considered the "not nice" one. It does not matter who the group is cursing: the dissenter is rushed off the channel and sometimes even banned by the operator. Therefore, there is an enormous advantage to the first mover.

On IRC, it is impossible to express dissent, even of plainly incorrect or inappropriate statements, if an active group is talking.

The echo chamber

Because it is difficult to express dissent without being "not nice" and difficult to have an argument ("a series of logically connected propositions designed to prove a position," as Michael Palin says), like voices get privileged over any diversity. This leads to a false sense of consensus. If a person is on IRC and discussing the wickedness of user:Bobo, that person's four person strong chatting cluster's consent can make him or her think that all of the silent names are in agreement, that all other persons are in agreement. Because there are thirty conversations, the failure to be stopped must surely be total agreement. This can drastically and disastrously mislead a user. "Silence implies consent" is a fallacy in all regards, and it is especially true in a medium where dissent is difficult and discouraged.

IRC conversations give a falsely monologic and monocultural view

IRC's best function is duplicated by more persistent and portable areas

The most appropriate/natural function of IRC is chatting. The free flowing chat of IRC is nowhere duplicated. However, IRC's most Wikipedia-related function is to offer up announcements. The problem is that we have both WP:AN and WP:AN/I, as well as the Village Pump and the portal pages for the projects, that performs an identical function. The Mediation Cabal page also works to help. The category: speedy deletion works for quick deletion, deletion review exists for an appeal of a deletion. All of these fora leave words with a history, and all of them can be ported from one part of Wikipedia to another (from the forum to the user page to an RFC, etc.). Therefore, anyone using IRC for anything other than a true emergency (e.g. "the servers are on fire!") announcement is choosing a less useful forum than what is available and, at the same time, is "wasting" his or her words, if there is any controversy at all.

Best Practices for the use of IRC

Given that IRC's world is not Wikipedia's world, that anything said there is non-persistent and non-portable, that it is divorced from Wikipedia so fundamentally that the two barely touch in philosophy or abilities, my own conclusions are as follows.

Major conclusion #1: The right to rebut.

One of the great innovations of the Magna carta, which was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and adopted by the Napoleonic Code, is that every person has a right to know the charges against him and to face his accuser in open court. Argument by analogy is a fallacy, but this analogy is illustrative. If both parties are not present, form no conclusions. In other words, if both "sides" of a conflict (whether delete/keep, block/unblock, or warn/applaud) are present and presenting their cases, then there can be a decision formed. This applies down to even informal matters. It is not merely a user coming to IRC and asking for a delete/undelete, etc., but also any person coming to tell you "what's going on." Do not form a decision until you have all sides, and especially do not act without giving all sides a chance to know what is being considered and a chance to explain.

Major conclusion #2: No Wikipedia actions from IRC alone.

In the most strikingly obvious cases, where a person calls for action on IRC and there is no doubt, still do not act on that basis. Act solely on the basis of Wikipedia. That means documenting everything on Wikipedia. Every single thing. Every piece of the decision needs to be recorded, even when there is no doubt. The most logical way to do this is to post to the talk page of a person who is going to be affected by the decision. Explain yourself. This is not "process wonkery": this is Wikipedia. IRC is not Wikipedia, and therefore it can't be the basis of any on-Wikipedia action unless everything reasoned and proposed there is replicated on the persistent medium of the wiki. If you're "too busy" to investigate, then you're "too busy" to act.

Major conclusion #3: IRC for announcements.

IRC is a good place to make people aware of things on the wiki that they should investigate, and it should be used for that. If you are seeking to increase awareness of an action on the wiki, then IRC is good, but the difference between awareness and a call to action is substantial and important.

Major conclusion #4: Real time communication is useful in emergencies only.

If there is a genuine emergency, use IRC. Duplicate your call for action on one of the noticeboards on Wikipedia simultaneously. Otherwise, if there is no emergency, use one of the noticeboards first and then, later, if you are on IRC, you can refer people to that on-wiki spot for further reading/comment. Never use IRC alone, and do not use it first, unless there is a genuine emergency (tsunami, attack by Mothra, etc.).

Major conclusion #5: Never write an e-mail that you wouldn't show your mother = Never use IRC to hide.

One of the things savvy and cranky e-mail administrators tell shocked corporate criminals is to never assume that your e-mail is private, never to say anything on e-mail that you wouldn't want the whole world to know. Well, the corollary for IRC would be to never say anything on IRC that you wouldn't want to be logged and posted publically. Even though Freenode forbids public logging, there is a great deal of logging going on. Someone will share the logs with someone else, if you cross the line. Do not use IRC to hide your emotions and actions or to do things that are not allowed on Wikipedia. If someone on IRC begins to act in a way that is in flagrant violation of Wikipedia policies, and especially if someone wants to drag you into that, refuse. Remember: you are not really operating in secret.

Major conclusion #6: Social formation is good, but counter-social formation is evil.

IRC forms social groups, from the nexus of the chatting cluster to the permanent members of IRC. This is good, and it is satisfying. However, if it creates a group in opposition to another, stated or implied, group, it has moved from the salutary construction of society to the dangerous and evil partisanship and politics. If one chatting group is against another chatting group (see conclusion #1), then that is the usual human spat. If a chatting group is against the non-chatting Wikipedia group in opposition to a particular goal, then that is an attempt to create a party and to make the "opponents" into a party. This is bad. Do not participate.

Major conclusion #7: Muggings, character assassination, and clique formation are asinine.

IRC groups help each other out, and they're wonderful for that. IRC conversation flows from topic to topic, and that's good. However, there is the temptation (more irresistible for some users than others) to turn the topic to other Wikipedians, and how "stupid" and "whining" and "trollish" they are. If the other person is in the channel at the time, then what will occur is just a foolish attempt at arguing (see limitations of the medium). If the person is not present in the channel at the time, then what will occur is character assassination. This is way beyond "personal attacks" and "incivility": even if the user in question is an arbitrated bad guy, talking about the character of another Wikipedian is a way to forge a society based on hatred and intolerance.

Here is how to tell whether your conversation is taking a bad turn.

1. Are you talking about actions and articles and ideas? This is fine.
2. Are you talking about personalities and imputing motives and capabilities? If so, that is very, very bad.
3. Are you speaking in favor of someone or something? If so, give yourself a gold star from the box.
4. Are you speaking of how bad someone or something is? If so, you're whining and trying to drag others down.
5. Are you talking about "us" and "we" and all of "our" goals? If so, you're building the Wikipedia community.
6. Are you talking about "them" and "they" and how "they" are? If so, you are trying to build up a political party devoted to harming other Wikipedians and therefore Wikipedia's community.

Speak in favor, speak of yourself, and you will be building. Do not destroy Wikipedia's social side by using IRC to talk about how bad others are.

Conclusions

We should remember Jimbo's statement of principles and ask ourselves whether IRC is commensurate with them.

Using IRC for routine Wikipedia business (and, by extension, for trying to get around our policies and prohibitions) offends the principle of openness, by which we are all, even newbies, given equal access to Wikipedia process. We can and will use IRC for socializing. We can and sometimes may use IRC for speed, but the implication of Jimbo's words is that all security processes should be subject to the strictest scrutiny. Freenode's prohibitions against public logging are based on copyright law, and they mean that all IRC is inherently closed to scrutiny. The only way that it can be open is if we have total participation from all Wikipedians. I doubt that such participation levels are practical.

We have to keep in mind that IRC is, by its nature, counter to Wikipedia, and we make it serve us only by making ourselves serve Wikipedia. If we use IRC for a pastime, then we are simply Freenode surfing -- which is a valid enough activity. The problem is that we cannot conduct Wikipedia business in our pastime, and we cannot treat Wikipedia as subject to our personalities and personal desires.

(Thanks to qp10qp for much of the language of the above; see the talk page for full context.)

You volunteer to serve Wikipedia. It is not here to serve you. Wikipedia serves the world.

See also

• User:Kylu/IRC: Kylu is working on a parallel consideration of do's and don't's on IRC. (Please correct this link, if it goes stale.)