Talk:Controversial Reddit communities

Quotes

Inbox

Quotes which may be considered for inclusion.

Outbox

Quotes which may belong somewhere else.

Containment

I wish to propose a few guidelines for dealing with this difficult material.

First and foremost, the subreddits mentioned here should only be mentioned on this particular page. Quotes about these subreddits should not be posted to other pages. If that happens, they should be moved here instead.

If necessary, this talk page can be used as a drafting space for dealing with longer quotes. This also has the advantage that the quotes do not show up in ordinary searches.

One should avoid quoting directly from controversial subreddits, since this would entail linking to them. What one can do instead is to quote from articles that mention the subreddits. Quotes from mainstream reddits such as r/announcements and r/IAmA may be permitted, insofar as the quote is notable and relevant here.

When dealing with offensive material, it is well to avoid quoting more than necessary. One can use an ellipsis sign, "…", to shorten the quote. For example:

• Almost every day, strident misogynists called Pao a tyrant … or worse. (Yes, it gets worse.)
  • Andrew Marantz: "Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet" (archived). The New Yorker (2018-03-12).

In this quote, "…" elides a slur which need not be repeated here for the point to come across; a shortened quote suffices.

If very offensive material is posted to this talk page, it may be wrapped in a collapsible section, like so:

One can then work on trimming the material until one eventually arrives at something which may be presented without a collapsible section.

Additional guidelines may be considered, of course, and suggestions are very welcome. This is just a first draft, but it's a start. BurningLibrary (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You're suggesting that we include quotations and censor the quotation? I am struggling to understand what the point of that would be. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The point is that I would like to find some way to discuss and analyze online toxicity without perpetuating that very toxicity. In the example given, an attempt was made to represent the fact that a person was insulted without reproducing the insult itself in minute detail. It is a fine line to tread, and it might not appropriate all cases, but it is a tool in the toolbox that can be used in cases where one wishes to be gentle towards the people mentioned.

I would also like to maintain a distinction between redacting information and hiding it. It may seem like splitting hairs, but please bear with me. When a quote is shortened by the use of an ellipsis sign, "…", the missing information is still available in the original source. In the case of an online article, the user can retrieve it at the expense of an additional click.

When information is redacted, by contrast, it cannot be retrieved at all, because it has been crossed out (perhaps with the use of a black marker, as in "█████"), and the censored copy is the only one made available to the public. This is an example of true censorship. I am not suggesting that we should engage in such censorship here, only that we give some thought to how offensive material is presented and summarized. My recommendation is that we look for ways to quote in a gentle and tactful manner when living people are involved.

I concede that the example given is a bit contrived. It would be better to pick a quote from a fictional work, since that would make the case without involving living people. In any case, this is just a first draft, and it may need to be rewritten a number of times. The important thing is to get started. BurningLibrary (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)