Should we limit access to Viking Village?

There is no safety benefit to requiring a login to view the forum, as this isn't a place for illegal activities and people shouldn't be posting their life story anyway.  To say otherwise would be equivalent to saying that this forum, especially in its publically viewable format, puts people at risk.

Would you buy a car before taking it for a test drive?  A closed environment only damages the forum's userbase to grow as people would not be able to see what the forum has to offer.

I'm actually somewhat surprised this is even a topic for discussion.

Yah, I don't think that the Viking Village Forum should require people to login...I know a lot of the time when I'm logging into my email I'll just check out a couple of the threads but I don't really want to have to take the time to login to check it out.  I think it should just be open.  Plus, I think it's a good thing that people all around the world can look at Western's forum and see how awesome we are :)

This is the issue:  Some of the stuff on the forum, while still valuable, is not the greatest. Most of everything that remains online in VV is appropriate according to the guidelines, but it might not look so sweet to prospective students, their parents, the media, or others that are unaffiliated with the University.

Do we want what is posted on this forum to be part of the online representation of Western?

I equate Viking Village to being in Red Square. If you yell obsceneties in red square you'll get taking away; the same goes for here. I think that this should be a representation of WWU and that students should always be keeping that in mind. I think that w/o that onus of knowing that the world can view this, students may feel, even more so, that they can treat this forum however they want, and that's not condusive to the environment we want here.

Though my comments are somewhat frequent, my looking into the forum topics is only when checking my e-mail and blackboard and happen to glance over and see an interesting topic.  I am one that would have to say I'm not sure I would take the extra energy, as small and lazy it may sound, to login to do such peaking around.

This is an oversimplification that leads to a false conclusion.  I wouild agree (if it was your intent) the the belief that there isn't significantly greater threat from the outside world than from the campus community.

The forum should not be used to facilitate or encourage illegal activities, but it should be a place where discussion of legalities and/or sensitive topics should be allowed, so long as people watch their behavior.  Whether or not they share their life story isn't (and shouldn't be) subject to your personal opinion, as the forum wasn't created by you, isn't maintained or sustained by you, and isn't moderated by you by you.  If someone feels the need to share they should have the freedom to do so.  But they do so with the knowledge that they subject themselves to the opinions of others by that act.

It is the behavior of the participants that should be monitored.  Obviously and clearly illegal posts should be modded and stopped.  Threats, rules violations, etc. should be dealt with judiciously according to relative severity.  Everything else, generally speaking, should be allowed.  I say there should be a fair amount of leeway here, so long as there isn't any specific facilitation of illegal activities.  After all Civil Disobedience is generally considered a primary tenet of non-violent resistance.  And so long as there is attempt to use University resources to break the law, then discussion around these ideas should be allowed.  Posting is also not-anonymous and there shouldn't be any expectation of privacy, so discussion of specific illegal acts should be discouraged as well.

The reason for I digressed in the last two I'm a big proponent of discussion and debate, and I think the forum should be allowed to allow that.  If that is the caset, there is a lot of freedom to post things that may be personal or sensitive.  For example, identifying oneself as a Christian or an atheist is inherently personal, but might be wholly on topic.  If you support legalization of marijuana, that also is a personal choice, but leaves you open to judgement based upon admission of that opinion.  In that way, it directly relates to the idea of safety.

The issue of safety isn't non-existent, as you state.  Because some people are more free with the information they give out, the possibility exists that it could be exploited by someone looking to use that information for negative purposes.  Again, this comes down to behavior of the individual.  'Oversharing' is something we should definitely caution people against, but isn't something we should, necessarily, prevent, as it's not illegal or even bad in and of itself.  For instance, I have no problem sharing my name, position, etc. as I, personally have little to worry about by giving this information out.  Others, perhaps someone who is overly aggressive or has troll-like interpersonal skill issues, might run the risk of someone finding out who they are, where they hang out, their e-mail address, etc.  It isn't necessarily a problem, but it is potentially a problem.

I think that we should caution people about 'oversharing' or providing personal details, but not prevent it.  The issue of safety, however, exists whether or not we allow 'guests' to look at the forum or not.

This I agree with 100%.  It might benefit us, though, to be up front with 'visitors' about side effects of idea exchange, like a warning in the form of a disclaimer about the potential content.

I sincerely hope this isn't the case.

This is the worst kind of slippery slope.  If we allow the opinion of a parent or even a few parents to dictate the content of the forum, or even, at a higher level, whether or not it's accessible to the outside world then what have you done?  You have created a precedent of allowing an external complaint to dictate behavior.  The students (most of them anyway) are above the age of majority (in WA state anyway) and considered legal adults.

Where do we draw the line?  If a Christian parent objects to Atheist or pagan threads, should we capitulate simply because we aren't presenting an 'image' that is acceptable to that parent?

Like it or not,  the forum IS a representation of Western and it's students (since they are the most active).  Should we try to hide this fact, or should we acknowledge that being at the University is supposed to be about education and personal growth, an expansion of your knowledge, skillset, and experience.  If it's the former, then we are being dishonest, if it is the latter than we should give warnings but allow people the reasonable freedoms they need (within the venue)  to express themselves.

Requiring authentication to view content doesn't deal with that issue.  This is a public forum.  Forum.wwu.edu does not sound like, nor was it intended to be some internal discussion area for WWU.  If you don't want certain people to see something, don't post it.  That's like not wanting people to know you club seals.  The correct course of action is to stop clubbing seals, not to just keep it a secret from everyone.
Chad's response covered the same topic and was better than mine, so read that.

What else would it be?  This is a public university.  This isn't a competitive Fortune 500 company where we have to keep our internal discussions hush-hush or else our trade secrets will leak out; if forum.wwu.edu was meant to do anything other than represent the university, something has gone very, very wrong every single step of the way.  Also, I've got a feeling people aren't telling their non-WWU friends to check out forum.wwu.edu and read up on all the latest news/gossip going down at WWU. See above.

L is low, P is incredibly low.  Yes, that means the risk is somewhere between low and incredibly low.

Edit: As you made your post while I was making mine:

Good call, as I don't maintain or moderate this forum, my opinion doesn't... matter (who knows what "normative" means anyway)?  Also, as you can see in the Guidelines for Participation, so clearly on EVERY SINGLE PAGE:

Be safe: Since the forum is public, avoid posting personal information; use private messaging.

Until this forum (if ever) becomes private, no, people should not be posting their life story on here, or any forum, for that matter.  Blogs exist for this exact reason.  Forums are for discussion.

I find it kind of humorous that we're debating whether or not to hide part of the University's identity from the public cause it may look bad.

I don't think we should have to login, but I do appreciate you asking us for feedback. 

This sounds really nerdy but....

I think after I graduate I will still come back to the forum from time to time and check out what issues are being talked about and just for the pure entertainment value of some of the things people say on here. Therefore I do not like the idea of the login to see content proposal (although I am glad they did that for the WWU student job page)

On the one hand I see what you are saying, but on the other hand, I think the commedy of errors that is the Western Front makes me cringe a lot more than this forum.  And I am a post graduate troll checking in at 3 AM EST after studying all Friday night...

Safe from what? What exact quality could a post have such that the poster could be in some sort of "danger"? Or are you asking if I only want to be heard by other members? So basically, I want to post my opinions online under a psuedonym, but I just don't want everyone online to know what I think, because err... yeah why? Is some stranger going to hunt me down and scold about something I posted last year? Will creepy people gain intimate knowledge of which English 101 teacher I should register for this winter? Will someone prove that I'm really not a bald eagle?

Do what you want, but don't act like you're actually improving anything.

There are absolutely safety issues at work here.

Students regularly post personal email and mobile numbers in trade, lost and found, getting together, bellingham life and academics.  How widely would you want your name, email and phone number dissessiminated on the global internet?

Generally, students presume that a Western environment is just that, a Western environment.  I doubt that many students are even aware that their posts can be read by anyone, with no attendant requirement to be a member of the faculty, staff or student populations.

While the chance of someone taking advantage of this is minimal, it doesn't mean it's not present.  I could easily see abuse of information from jilted boyfriend/girlfriends to the remote possibilitiy of a sexual predator.

This topic was originally discussed among the moderators because of parental complaints.  Personally, I don't really care what parents have to say about the content on this forum, althought it's a bit of a hassle for Andy and others who are actually responsible for this forum.  But I do think there are greater social issues at work here.  Safety and privacy for participants are prime among them.  Western is largely close to the general public in every other way.  You don't have strangers walking in and sitting in your classes.  Do you want that strange guy down at the public library reading your words, name and phone number?  I don't...

Finn

As already stated within the thread, address the cause, not the effect.  The same people that aren't conscious about their personal information probably have their Facebook profile public.  In those instance, locking this forum down doesn't make a difference.

All your argument does is fail to take responsibility.  That's the same kind of attitude evidenced by people who stand and watch while people are attacked instead of doing something about it.  Education would certainly be an added benefit, but there could be additional benefit from preventing people who have no valid reason for reading the forum from doing so.

Likening Sense's argument to allowing someone to be attacked due to mob mentality is a bit much, don't you think? There's something sort of futile about making a forum that prides itself of openness and respectful discourse closed to the general public. The university itself is public, technically, so why not the forum? Anyone on here can glean as much information about a student or faculty member as they could by walking around campus. Making the entire thing private seems kind of elitist to me.

So, according to you, if forum.wwu.edu "takes responsibility" and locks down the forum, people will be safer, despite their Facebook profile, containing infinitely more personal information, being completely public?  Did you seriously just charge yourself with the responsibility of the well-being of others?  Who do you think you are, a superhero?  Are you intentionally trolling me or is it just accidental?  Aren't you moderators supposed to prevent that kind of thing?  Feel free to repost with a relevant response.

Wouldn't that be a welcomed change of pace.

Finn didn't address Sensethismakesnone's argument that too many of the overly public posters on this forum most likely are overly public elsewhere on the internet.  Because of this, it makes their displays of information here more or less irrelevant and so the remark about "preventing people who have no valid reason for reading the forum from doing so", really does, as dermonm pointed out, come across as elitist. 

Chad, thank you.  I couldn't believe that Jamin actually felt comfortable (it is, after all, a public forum) posting such an inane argument.  I already feel like this forum tries to seem sugar-coated enough as it is, with some of the moderators coming across as the more embarassing representatives Western has to offer.  But still, they are members of this community and it would be ridiculous to pretend that they're not.  Ridiculous, and insincere. They aren't advocating hate, so I see no reason to limit their opinions, and no reason to stop anyone from reading them.

One more thing,

is this true?  I see people on campus walking their children and their dogs all the time.  Also, I'm pretty sure our library is somewhat public as well, though I could be totally mistaken about that. 

Jesus, lo-lee-ta, you make me feel great about myself. haha, god I love VV.

I feel comfortable 'posing such an inane argument' because it is how the forum presents the University that is ultimately what will be the prevailing factor in whether VV lives or dies.

Yea, it sounds crappy, but if the faculty doesn't like what they are reading, if parents and students contact various offices because they don't like what they are reading, and if University administration doesn't like what they are reading then the forum will be no more.

I feel like an online community where open discussion and discourse can take place is amazingly valuable to the students, staff, and admin, but if VV becomes more of a hassle and eye-sore than it is worth then it doesn't make sense to keep it alive.

As a disclaimer: I don't think any of us want VV to die and this is why, as you said lo-lee-ta, the forum seems so 'sugar-coated.'

As a second disclaimer: like it says in my sig, my views are not necessarily those of the moderators or the advisory board, they are mine.

Yes, a forum's image is far more important than the actual content on it. Bad PR from the forum leads to bad PR for the university which leads to nothing if the forum is heavily used, unless someone can demonstrate in this time of budget cuts that forum.wwu.edu needs to go because it's a money sinkhole (see: WWU Football).  Again, if you want to prevent bad PR, address the root issue (you mods seem to be unanimous, which kind of defeats the point of a body of staff), see: clubbing seals analogy above.

Alright, I'll concede that you feel this way and that it's coming from a good place.  But, I truly do believe that you're wrong.  I would almost rather have no forum than have one that exists to portray a desireable, but false, image. 

What do you mean by "if the faculty doesn't like what they are reading, if parents and students contact various offices because they don't like what they are reading..."?  This seems to follow what Sensethismakenone keeps saying about addressing the root issue.  Just because the faculty, parents and students don't like what they are reading on the forum, getting rid of it does nothing but pretend those objectionable things don't exist (kind of like that mob mentality Finn incorrectly applied to Sensethismakesnone's argument), when they clearly do.  This forum represents Western.  We shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Also, for your disclaimer, you should be allowed to post your opinions.  I never figured you were posting anyone else's. 

WWU campus may be open to the public, but the institution itself is not.  Students, staff and faculty who work in 'sensitive' areas are required to pass background checks to ensure the safety of the student population.  Sensitive information is definited to include personal information.  Protecting that information is a responsibility of the university, not an optional choice.  In fact, like HIPAA for health care, the university is liable for disemination of personal information without a release.

I'd like to know what impact closing the forum to the browsing public would have on the function of this forum?  In order to post, you have to be student, faculty or staff member.  Since the public cannot participate, what value are they adding to this forum?  If you want to share something posted on the forum, you can just as easily copy it into an email. 

I'm actually surprised at how little the respect for privacy is evident here.  Generally, privacy is one of the few issues that unite the entire political spectrum (excepting of course the right wing support for the Patriot Act).

Finn

Covered in the very first response:

Edit: Also, Finn, your first para has no relevance to this thread.  We are not talking about other areas (you know, where HIPAA would matter).  We are not talking about the university giving away user information, sensitive or otherwise.  We are talking about users posting their own personal information and how the proposed action has an insignificant effect.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make by bringing up HIPAA. It has absolutely no place in any argument for limiting access to this forum.

If you want to have a public forum, then keep it open for everyone to view. Otherwise it is a private forum.

The forum users are responsible for giving away their own information if they (naively) choose to do so. If it violates their privacy, then they should know that it is their fault.

It is the responsibility of the university to not give away students/faculty information. I interpret this as "the university cannot give your information to anyone who asks for it".

The point of keeping the forum public viewable is for that exact reason: to let the public view the forum.

Most forums (IN BEFORE "THIS IS NOT LIKE MOST FORUMS") leave their posts open to anonymous users to look at, cite, quote. Seeing as the forum is already being indexed by Google, it seems like a legitimate source of (mis)information.

I don't know why there seems to be an ongoing fight against the bulletin board system norms that have been established pretty much since the birth of internet. Whatever. Lets all reinvent the wheel next, ok?

Wow, you are exasperating.  Is Google God with a capital 'G'?  And I would hardly compare this to reininventing the wheel, there are actual risks at work here, from facilitating identity theft to human predation, or the more banal embarrassment.

Our forum is not public, you *MUST* be a student, faculty or staff member to post.  Participation is limited.

Once again, what value do we as participants in the forum gain from people outside Western reading our posts?  Even better, give me three concrete instances where not being public would cause harm and then weigh that against the potential harm from dissemination of private information and I'll gladly reconsider.  It doesn't really matter that user's are making a mistake in sharing private information, the goal is harm reduction. 

Oh, and I forgot.  You must be right because *google* is indexing our content. 

Finn

People should never post things on any forum, public or private, that they do not want getting out, period.  It doesn't matter whether it's public or "private," in the sense that only Western students and faculty can access it.  There are still 14,000 people in the Western community and the threats that have been discussed so far, namely sexual predation and such, are just as likely to happen within the Western community as they are within the Bellingham community or the global community.  I suppose I just don't see why this forum should be closed to the public.  There are other ways to get in contact with a person outside of the forums (such as requesting to become somebody's friend on Facebook) that don't involve giving out personal cell phone numbers or addresses or meeting places, etc.  I personally would not feel any "safer" if this was closed to the public.  If there is information that I wouldn't want a stranger or anybody getting a hold of, I don't post it on the internet in any form or fashion.  No information that is on the internet is 100% secure.

 There are issues to consider, but not necessarily 'at work'.  Is there a risk in posting personal information on a publicly accessible venue.  Yes.  Is WWU any way, encouraging users to do so?  No.  That should be the beginning and end of the discussion.

Is the city of San Fansisco responsible for the fact that many people jump off the bridge to their deaths every year?  No.  They discourage it, they have hotline numbers posted.  They'd prefer that people don't (obviously) and have taken some reasonable measures to prevent it, but short of destroying the bridge they can do nothing about the people that choose to do the things they do.

While it isn't that bad here, we shouldn't have to limit or close down the forum just to stop people from not being responsible.  It's a good thing, and despite the occasional troll, there is a lot of good stuff on here.

Why would they think it isn't?  There ARE warnings, it is accessible from home without logging in, all the necessary information is provided.  I can't help but think that you are projecting your opinion of what people believe upon thousands of people.  Without data, you cannot possible presume to know what all, or even most, students believe about the forum.  Be careful of your own assumptions here.

You said it yourself, the chance is minimal.  Would you guess that the chance is greater or lesser of abuses 'in person'?  Better yet is there more or less chance that the person who could abuse that information is affiliated with Western?  I'm not asking for data, just what reason and logic says.

If a person with the same issues had access to their records because of their position, it could happen, yet 100s of people have access to said information, and are implicitly 'trusted' simply based upon their position description (including other students employed by WWU). Is there risk there?  Certainly.  Does it stop WWU from hiring people?  No.

If the issue came up due to complaints from parents then it should be addressed in that context.  Are you saying we should limit it so parents can't see what's going on?  Would that stop any parent from having their children logon to the forum and snoop?  Would it prevent a student who didn't like what was said from complaining to their parents?  In both cases, it's a no, so you would be creating a false or otherwise inneffective barrier.

Your implication here (by omission) is that students are somehow at greater risk from a stranger than a member of a closed community.  This is false (with the exception of most 'serial' crimes) -

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/campus/know-attacker.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/stalking/welcome.htm

There are more studies out there if you want to investigate it for yourself.

Who decides whether or not someone has a valid reason to read the forum?  How do we make exceptions for parents.

I have to ask, are you honestly attempting to compare the are you genuinely comparing the tacit bystander in an assault to not locking down the forums?  I understand what your asking for, but this kind of comparison is heavily flawed.

So long as those in charge of the forum give people warning against posting personal info (done) and take action when one person threatens another (done) or tries to use the forum for illegal activity (done), , what is left is an individual's personal responsibility, for which the forum cannot possibly have ownership.

Well, I'm not sure if it can 'pride itself' as that, really is a function of people.  If the University (I'm thinking administration here) wishes to convey this idea, then it should support the (mostly) free exchange of ideas, no matter what form it takes, in the classroom, books written by faculty, V V, etc.

To be fair, I think you're taking the statement to it's most extreme conclusion (he didn't claim to think he was a superhero), and somewhat misrepresenting what they are trying to say, creating a kind of strawman.

He's raising a concern.  It has validity, in that there is at least a foundational basis for concern.  Bad things happen, and the more one decides to put themselves 'out there' the more risk you run of someone taking advantage.  The concern is valid.  There are too many assumptions about the threat it presents (the assessment of which is incomplete), and the proposed solution would make the forum more difficult to use by discouraging virtually all casual browsing.

Please be cautious when using labels like 'inane' it is likely to create a specific reaction.

Also, being critical of the moderators (saying they are embarassing) in the same sentence as you say it should be OK for them to say what they think and that they are

They do a lot of good work.  They  provide a buffer between the 'iffy' content and contributers and allow the forum to exist.  Without their volunteer effort, likely the forum would have been taken offline long ago.  They should be allowed to contribute, even if some of them post things that some people don't like.  So long as they do what is asked of them, and don't abuse their station, they should be left to it.

You're not wrong, our campus is, generally speaking, open to the public.  Anyone can go to the Library, eat at the eatery's (dining halls might be an exception), walk the campus, enter buildings and rooms, etc.

The campus does not exist solely to serve the campus, so the facilities are designated primarily for use by the students and affiliated people, but that's a far cry from being not being open to the public.  We are, at least in our service areas.

Perhaps, but I hope it doesn't manifest in they way you seem to imply.

You might be right, in that, if the right person or persons get in a frenzy for the wrong reason, it could well be shut down.  But what is the alternative?  Would you rather have a V V that represents only a single viewpoint, that of an overly conservative and politically sensitive forum?  Would you rather that the casual browser is turned away, killing any fly-by traffic because it's just not worth the bother of authenticating (yes it seems minor, but it's a bother) to read new content?

I lilke V V the way it is.  Sure there might be the occasional hinky contribution, or topic that gets people worked up.  But what forum doesn't?  There are people that contribute poorly, and for the most part, those that try to intentionally troll get dealt with eventually.  What is there to fear, really?

If a parent calls with a genuine concern and it gets dealt with (before or after they call) then their fears get addressed.  If they call and their concern is hysterical or otherwise without foundation, then should we respond as if it has merit?

Should we make things harder, simply because this scenario might come up?

I'm sorry, but you're not accurate.  At the very least, the parallel you're drawing isn't genuinely parallel.

The core functions of the university (scholarly efforts) aren't available to the public, but they're not meant to be.  That doesn't stop the grounds, the buildings, and many functions (particularly those in the library), from being available to the public, with obvious restrictions.

By restricting access, you aren't (sufficiently) stopping any kind of genuine 'threat', you aren't necessarily preventing parents from seeing it (still possible through their children), and you aren't going to force people to be responsible with their personal information.

You essentially create a barrier for the primary users of this venue, the students who frequent it, while solving virtually nothing of substantive concern.  How can this be a good idea?

The pre-requisites that any position might have for confidentiality and/or background investigations, really have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  In a position that requires the handling of personal data, that requirement and responsibility is stated up front.  In what way, exactly, do you think it relates?

Think of it like this: it is probably not OK for the fin-aid folks to share a students financial information, or a registrar to share your grade information with anyone who is not authorized.  But that does not mean that the student themselves isn't free to do so.  On the forum, if the student chooses, despite warnings, they may share information of a personal nature.  Why is it any different for the forum?

I'm not sure if you intended this, but it seems like an attempt at misdirection.  You're changing the argument to something that isn't being considered.  Noone here has even used the argument that we're unnecessarily stopping the 'public'.  The disagreement is from the other direction, the impact it has on the participants.

For the record, I am against closing the forum to unregistered users.

And, in our defense, there already had been some discussion of this topic among the mod team/advisory board before this issue was made public.

Ditto, also against closing off the forum. We'll see what the mod & advisory board discussions go like.

Jamin

Although, I see this isn't a popular view.  I think the forum should be closed to the public.  As of right now everything said and done on the forum is open to the public and the media.

If some kind of issue pops up on campus this forum can be quoted...as well as the screen name.  The University will be held accountable in the media. 

As of right now there is an open forum that has meeting notes for a non-profit international club.  Anything they discuss can be found on a search engine. (Not this forum...unassociated with WWU.)  The situation is a bit frightening...slander type issues.

This should only be open to the campus community.

Also, I'm automatically signed in when I log on through western and go to my messages.  I don't have to sign in.

Good! That means that our single-login system is working! Once you use your universal account to log in anywhere on Western's website it automatically signs you in to all services, including VV.

Yeah, and with every little tweak you guys do it gets better.