Content deleted Content added
→Change deceptive wording?: new section |
Dronebogus (talk | contribs) |
||
| (42 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 3:
{{self-harm}}
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}▼
{{censor}}
{{controversial}}
{{
{{
{{Article history
|dykdate = 16 August 2023
Line 25 ⟶ 24:
|action2result = kept
|action2oldid = 1169425291
|action3 = GAR
|action3date = 17:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
|action3link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sanctioned Suicide/2
|action3result = kept
|action3oldid = 1225091360
|currentstatus = GA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1=
{{WikiProject Websites
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech
{{WikiProject Internet culture
{{WikiProject Death
}}
{{American English}}
{{Annual readership}}
Line 45 ⟶ 51:
| minthreadsleft = 5
}}
<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->
Line 55 ⟶ 60:
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sanctioned Suicide/1}}
== Compiling recent research ==
Since it's been a while since I've updated the article, I've looked for what new sourcing has come out about the website that hasn't been added yet. Here are all of the recent publications about the forum that I could find:
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-70282-0 (Lekkas and Jacobson, 2024)], from just two days ago, is primarily about machine learning, but it does provide additional description of the website that was not included previously, such as descriptions of the registration process and the level of moderation. It describes the forum as pro-suicide, while also stating that it describes itself as pro-choice (which is curiously the term they use for the rest of the article). The authors describe criticism of the site as deserved, but also acknowledge the forum can have some positive outcomes, writing that the camaraderie provided by the site could reduce suicide risk. As pertaining to previous discussions, the authors describe the site as 'anonymous', 'fringe', 'anti-censorship', and 'anti-stigma'.
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11085041/#R15 (Das et al., 2024)] finds that there is a statistically significant association between mentions of sodium nitrite on the website and sodium nitrite suicides in the United States. They also write that the purpose of the site is to discuss suicide and methods without 'content screening', which may be better than our current lede which uses the words "known for". They also describe that the website has 3 post options—discussion, poll, and question. The article also includes [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11085041/figure/F3/ a graph] of showing changes in mentions of different suicide methods over time.
* [https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076231210714 (Lekkas and Jacobson, 2023)] describes the site has having a unique digital subculture and language (pointing to words like "catch the bus", "exit bag" and "SN"). They write that the website is ripe for ethnographic and linguistic research.
* [https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/nyulpp26&i=270 (Fisher, 2023)] examines the legal and political feasibility of restrictions on websites like Sanctioned Suicide and restrictions on the sale of sodium nitrite. They mention the two operators by name and describe how they are careful to not encourage suicide themselves. The paper also discusses various pieces of proposed legislation (in the US) that would criminalize online suicide assistance. The article also describes changes in UK law in reaction to the site and successes in Australia at limiting the site's reach. They also specifically mention that the site was banned from search results in Germany under the ''German Youth Law''. The article also describes the large difference in number of posts in the discussion and recovery forums (1.2 million comments vs less than 79,000).
* [https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2024.2 (Newman, 2023)] warns that criminalization of providing information on suicide methods would "have a broad chilling effect on free speech" and describes how the site skirts legal restrictions by encouraging only the spread of 'factual information', rather than 'assistance'.
== Using the site as a source ==
Would it be possible to use pinned posts on the site as a source for factual claims (e.g. things they promote)?
If so, how would you cite it without including the URL? [[User:Laura240406|Laura240406]] ([[User talk:Laura240406|talk]]) 16:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:The talk page has already reached consensus that the forum itself should not be directly cited, and this aligns with Wikipedia's core content policies for several important reasons:
:1. '''Preference for Secondary Sources''':
:Per [[WP:PSTS]], Wikipedia prioritizes secondary sources because they provide broader context and analysis. The forum's pinned posts are primary sources—authored by the site itself—and are inherently biased. Without independent verification or context, these posts cannot reliably document the site’s broader influence or practices. Primary sources CAN be useful in some contexts, but are generally not suitable for contentious claims about third parties (per [[WP:PRIMARY]]).
:2. '''Neutral Point of View (NPOV)''':
:Citing the site’s self-description risks misrepresenting its activities. Wikipedia’s [[WP:NPOV]] policy requires the fair representation of all significant viewpoints, especially those supported by experts and reliable sources. Using the forum directly would give undue weight to its own narrative, which may conflict with external evaluations by journalists, researchers, and professionals.
:3. '''Verifiability''':
:Posts from the forum fail to meet Wikipedia’s [[WP:V]] standard, as their claims cannot be independently corroborated. Including such sources could mislead readers by lending undue credibility to unverified information. This would violate the [[WP:UNDUE]] principle by amplifying potentially biased or unsupported claims.
:4. '''Ethical and Practical Concerns''':
:Quoting the forum directly could inadvertently direct readers to harmful content, contradicting Wikipedia’s policy against amplifying harmful or promotional material ([[WP:NOTSOAPBOX]]). Additionally, citing posts without linking directly would lack transparency and create disputes about accuracy or interpretation, undermining the reliability of the article.
:So instead of relying on the forum itself, we should continue to use peer-reviewed research, journalistic investigations, and expert commentary to describe the site’s practices and effects. These secondary sources offer the neutrality, credibility, and context needed to ensure Wikipedia provides accurate, balanced, and informative content. [[User:Xelapilled|Xelapilled]] ([[User talk:Xelapilled|talk]]) 03:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::okay thanks for the clarification [[User:Laura240406|Laura240406]] ([[User talk:Laura240406|talk]]) 13:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
== I think removing the link to the official forum is a violation of WP is not censored ==
▲:Thank you, I think I've incorporated everything from those three now. ~ [[User:Freedom4U|F4U]] ([[User talk:Freedom4U|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedom4U|they/it]]) 18:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
SS does not encourage suicide; rather, it has a different perspective on life and death, which some might find unsettling. However, this is not a matter that Wikipedia should concern itself with. SS is not "pro-death"; it is "pro-choice", which is fundamentally different. Removing the link makes Wikipedia appear censored and as though it has adopted a specific point of view on this topic, which would violate its policies. I believe the URL should be included [[User:Super ninja2|☆SuperNinja2☆]] <small>'''[[User talk:Super ninja2|<u>TALK!</u>]]'''</small> 23:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:The decision isn't about censorship, it's about Wikipedia's commitment to [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] with its responsibility to readers. While it's true that Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTCENSORED|not censored]], this policy doesn't mean that every link or piece of content should be included simply to avoid the appearance of censorship. Including a direct link to the forum raises concerns about inadvertently directing users to potentially harmful material, which conflicts with Wikipedia's goals of being a responsible and educational platform. This is why we have the talk pages.
:Wikipedia's stance on neutrality ([[WP:NPOV]]) requires presenting all significant perspectives, but it also involves exercising judgement on how to represent and contextualize controversial subjects. The forum may self-identify as "pro-choice" (which is reflected in the article), but numerous sources including journalists and researchers have documented its harmful impact. Most reliable secondary sources label it "pro-suicide" or document its harmful impact. Reflecting these external views maintains neutrality and avoids privileging the forum’s self-representation. We all know what the forum thinks it is.
:Removing the link does not inherently violate neutrality—it reflects a consensus to avoid amplifying the site's reach, especially given its sensitive and controversial nature. Wikipedia has previously excluded direct links to sites with similar controversies (e.g., hate groups, extremist forums) such as [[Kiwi Farms]], where the URL section of the infobox is intentionally empty as per consensus (just like we have done with SS). These decisions were based on the same reasoning: ensuring neutrality and avoiding amplification of harmful material. Even if the intent is to remain neutral, directing readers to a site criticized for enabling harmful behaviors could expose vulnerable individuals to risk. Wikipedia has a history of avoiding links to potentially harmful or illegal content, particularly when reliable secondary sources provide sufficient information. In this case, expert commentary and investigative journalism already offer a detailed picture of the forum, making the link itself unnecessary for understanding the topic.
:If this is meant to be a challenge against the talk page's consensus, then '''my vote is to keep the url section empty''' and reaffirm the article's framing on SS '''as it already exists'''. [[User:Xelapilled|Xelapilled]] ([[User talk:Xelapilled|talk]]) 11:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Xelapilled|Xelapilled]] The vast majority of hate groups, some illegal stuff like piracy websites, morally abhorrent sites, are linked. [[Stormfront (website)]], ISIS and Al-Qaeda propaganda sites, [[The Pirate Bay]], [[Anna's Archive]], [[Z-Library]], all hate speech or illegal piracy sites, we link them. People had strong feelings about the Kiwi Farms one so that ended up unlinked. As to my personal thoughts, I think we should include the link for every website with an article, if the website does not have illegal content in the US (but we already ignore that rule by linking to every single piracy website). I personally think it's absurd we don't link this one here, but the consensus was already discussed and there's no point in rehashing a fight I know I'll lose. Generally however you are wrong - this is the exception to the general practice and not the rule. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 12:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:I’m agnostic about it. It’s a rare case of arbitrary moralization per Parakanyaa, basically saying encouraging suicide (which Kiwi Farms has also been accused of doing, albeit for completely different reasons) is the only thing appalling enough to outright censor. But removing the link does nothing; if people ''really'' want to find it, they can find it very easily. So arguing to put it back in is just moralizing from a different, arguably worse direction i.e. “[[Wiktionary:freeze peach|freeze peach]]” absolutism. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
| |||