I previously described my experience of being a member of Kevin Spacey's Trigger
Street Labs website
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004388.html
I think part of my shock was based on being British, and how the sink-or-swim attitude
prevailed by those running and moderating. At least at Wikipedia there is some notion of
"We have a problem here, let's discuss how best to fix it." The name of one
forum at TS was "Free for all - enter at your own risk" followed by a note that
more members had been suspended from that message board than from any of the others, and
this is all they have in the way of rules
http://labs.triggerstreet.com/labs/Help?faqCat=Message%20Board
Having said that, the one thing that I thought worked well was their Hall of Justice.
Members earn credits for their reviews (which are randomly assigned by the 'assignment
generator') they then spend them on the website. An obvious way of earning a lot of
credits is to make up a load of generic comments like, "the characters in this
screenplay are very interesting", request another assignment, copy and paste, earn
credit, and repeat.
The HOJ exists for members who think the review that they received was unfair. There is a
criteria for the reviews including: not cutting and pasting from other reviews, (if you
think it has happened then you include the ref. no. from the other review as evidence),
reviews should be constructive and non-abusive, a decent word length (I think the minimum
was 100 words), there should also be evidence in the review which shows that the reviewer
definitely read / watched the submission.
If a member thinks they have been unfairly treated then they send a review to the HOJ.
Other members - let's call them arbitrators - with a high enough participation level
(like having 'enough' edits in your edit history) can request a - randomly
generated - docket, read the review, read the details of the complaint e.g. ("I think
this review is a cut & past of ref. # 'x' ...."). The arbitrator who
received the docket for review then has a choice of Y/N check-boxes relating to the review
critieria and a comment form, for anything else that they might like to add.
The same docket goes to a number of different arbitrators in the same way. (Note: there is
a limit to how many dockets a member can request in 24 hrs.) If the majority think it
should go further, it is passed on to the jury.
Details about the jury from the website:
"The jury is a group of your peers made up of
seasoned members picked by site staff. Although we cannot say what the criteria is used to
pick the jury, logic dictates that they are active, positive, and objective members of the
community. They are asked not to reveal themselves or discuss their status with anyone so
they can vote without retribution."
(FAQs about the HOJ:
http://labs.triggerstreet.com/labs/Help?faqCat=Hall%20of%20Justice )
A Wikipedia variation on it might include:
* editors would need a certain number of edits before they are eligible to become an
arbitrator
* there would be a time-limit from the end of being blocked before being eligible for
'arbitration duty'
* administrators / senior figures would be ineligible to be arbitrators
* 'cases' for arbitrators to consider would be assigned randomly by computer
* it would be prohibited for an arbitrator to tell those involved in the case that they
have been allocated it
* 50% of those asked to consider a case would have to be female (other quotas might be
relevant for other demographics)
* there would be a limit to how many cases an arbitrator could ask for in a certain time
period (I actually envisage it being more like a cross between jury service and those user
talk page notices that there is a discussion taking place somewhere
These might be more technically difficult:
* cases would only go to arbitrators whose edit history is generally in a different
subject area - so someone complaining about a dispute about a particular scientific point
would have their complaint go to an arbitrator whose edit history is in, say, historical
BLPs
* a limit to the number of times you could go through the arbitration process with the
same case
Cases would only go forward for administrators to get involved with if enough arbitrators
agreed that it merited being put forward.
On a slightly different note:
Everyone seems to
be mentioning the different ways in which the rules are applied to male vs. female
editors. Is it possible to run a query or get hold of statistics for the average length of
time female editors get blocked for, versus how long male editors are blocked for? Perhaps
a table that takes account of the editors' participation levels prior to the block?
Marie
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 21:23:18 -0400
From: carolmooredc(a)verizon.net
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
When I was a little girl in the 1950s and 60s we were told to be passive
and pray for what we wanted. Thank heavens self-actualization and womens
liberation came along and we discovered "well-behaved women seldom make
history." (Nicely covered at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Thatcher_Ulrich )
If we want the guys to change we gotta keep busting their chops about
being civil, within the limits of civility of course. On a one on one
basis, day after day after day. And even though no matter how civil we
are, SOME of them still will think it is we who are being uncivil.
It's a dirty job, but it's gotta be done.
And the more guys who help promote civility and are willing to counter
the good-old-boy mentality, the better... :-)
On 7/3/2014 3:18 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:
There was an attempt to address the civility
problem on Wikipedia
English with a top down approach at the very start of Sue Gardner's
time at WMF. Sue, Jimmy Wales, myself, and a group of half dozen other
people talked about it in a closed group. It failed because a top down
approach is not effective on Wikipedia because policies can not be
enforced from the top. Policies need to be made that a large part of
the community agrees at proper and enforceable.
I would be willing to assist a group that wants to take another run at
it. But there are significant challenges with enforcing a civility
policy on a global community where cultural norms differ at great
deal. So, we need to be careful that an attempt to assist one group of
users does not make it harder for other groups of people who are also
under represented on Wikipedia English.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap