Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing
environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and
these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz,
zzzzz"
Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
for, among other things:
1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
to blocks.
2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew what
the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way.
Jonathan
> > Hoi,
> > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
> > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
> the
> > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> en.wp
> > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
>
>
I am writing to inform you that Wikimedia Armenia Scientific-Educational
Non-Governmental Organization’s regular Assembly took place on the 24th of
June during which the members of the organization elected the vital bodies
of the organization, that is the Board, the Supervisory Committee and the
President of the organization in a close, secret ballot.
The General Assembly was organized according to the legislation of the
Republic of Armenia and in the atmosphere of healthy and constructive
debate. The Assembly elected Marsela Khurshudyan, Tigran Azizbekyanand
Vahagn Piliposyan as Board members, David Poghosyan, Narek Avetisyan and
Vardan Mnatsakanyan as Supervisory Committee members, and Susanna Mkrtchyan
as the President of the organization.
During the first session, Vahagn Piliposyan was elected as the chair of the
Board and Tigran Azizbekyan was elected as the secretary of the Board.
All the results of the Assembly were notified to the members of the
organization, the staff, and other stakeholders.
I am happy to inform you that the new Board has adopted a new working style
of transparency and publicity․
All the protocols
<https://am.wikimedia.org/wiki/%D4%BD%D5%B8%D6%80%D5%B0%D5%B8%D6%82%D6%80%D5…>
of the Board and all the information
<https://am.wikimedia.org/wiki/%D4%BD%D5%B8%D6%80%D5%B0%D5%B8%D6%82%D6%80%D5…>
about work meetings will be available on the website (soon in English too).
P.S. I am attaching two documents concerning this matter; one of them is
the original Armenian version of the protocol and the other one is the
short English version of it.
Wikimedia Armenia NGO’s Chair of the Board
Vahagn Piliposyan
https://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Press:Statement_on_Terms_of_Use_enforcement
June 30, 2019
Wikimedia District of Columbia is deeply concerned by recent events that
have occurred on the English Wikipedia, including community controversy
regarding a ban imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Protecting editors from harassment is crucial to the continued success of
the Wikimedia movement. Many of us have been targets of harassment as a
result of our contributions to the Wikimedia projects, and have witnessed
harassment of our colleagues, and we are grateful to the Wikimedia
Foundation's Trust & Safety team for their support in those incidents.
We make no judgement on the case at the center of the current controversy
as the Foundation—as per long-standing practice to protect the privacy of
all concerned—did not identify the specifics of the behavior publicly. We
are not endorsing or opposing a specific case, policy, or process. However,
in light of these events, we publicly affirm our support for the following
principles:
- We support the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts in general to make the
English Wikipedia welcoming and accessible to people of all backgrounds and
gender identities.
- We believe there are circumstances where the Wikimedia Foundation
should take action against individual editors who violate the Terms of Use
when it is necessary to protect people of all backgrounds and gender
identities.
- We support collaboration between the Foundation and the English
Wikipedia community to inform the policies and processes surrounding these
efforts.
- We oppose the use of discriminatory, racist, and homophobic language
in all Wikimedia discussions, and encourage the community to avoid it,
regardless of context or intent.
Board of Directors
Wikimedia District of Columbia
At the moment I am not particularly happy, but I am grateful. I feel that
the English Wikiquote of the day for 30 June 2019
<https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Quote_of_the_day/June#30> is
appropriate to share for contemplation in the context of current tensions
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia…>
.
"What I'm saying here is not, I agree, poetry, as poems should be
written rarely and reluctantly, under unbearable duress and only with
the hope that good spirits, not evil ones, choose us for their
instrument."
— Czesław Miłosz
<https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Czes%C5%82aw_Mi%C5%82osz>, Polish writer,
diplomat, and recipient of a Nobel Prize in Literature
I am grateful for hundreds of colleagues who have participated generously,
courageously, and in good faith to advocate for what they believe are the
best interests of the Wikiverse projects. (I request that in this thread we
avoid advocating for particular outcomes so that we remain on topic.)
What's making you grateful or happy this week? You are welcome to comment
in any language.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )