Firstly, this is my own view, not that of the chapter's. That said, I do
have a bit of inside knowledge from both the chapter and my time on ArbCom,
which I've drawn on to some degree here.
--
AGK and Charles Matthews, as well as a few others, will be well aware of the
full history - but in short, Tom and AGK are right when they say that
security is a reference to outing and harassment.
Buckner attending events was something that several members and UK-based
Wikimedians did contact us about, and he was banned not because he's
criticising us, but because we can't trust him to keep the identities of our
members secret when our members ask to remain anonymous. Neither is it a
knee-jerk reaction to Peter Cohen's (or Buckner's) letter: the decision to
ban was taken a while ago, but was only made public today. The timing is a
coincidence.
As to 'safety', people's physical safety is not in question - but their
privacy is. Being forcibly 'outed' is a traumatic experience for anyone.
Many of you know that we have editors - and members - who wish to remain
anonymous, for good reason. Some are under 18. Several would lose their jobs
if they were outed - and once the information is public, it's very, very
difficult to remove it. Given Buckner's past history, it's clear that he
cannot be trusted with keeping the identities of those whom he meets secret.
We have a duty to our members to make sure that they feel safe and welcome
at real-life events, and several people have stated to us that they simply
wouldn't feel safe or welcome at the same event as Dr Buckner.
Peter (or anyone else): if you would like to meet me at some point in the
future, I will take you through Buckner's history on-wiki, and the reasons
he was banned from Wikipedia. I will also happily take you through some of
my own experiences of being (incorrectly) outed on Wikipedia Review,
including the real life repercussions on me, my family, and my job.
Finally, I know that some people share the same concerns as Buckner about
our charitable status, but we welcome constructive criticism of what we're
doing. That's how Wikipedia works, after all - discussion. Several Wikipedia
Review members have been in touch with us, politely and openly, with their
concerns - most of them have done so on-wiki. Those people have not been
banned, and will not be banned as long as they're polite, honest, and open.
But what is not acceptable is creating an atmosphere in which people feel
unable to attend real-life events or contribute to the projects because of
the actions of a single person. Having such a suspicious atmosphere damages
our goal of 'free knowledge for all', and makes it very difficult to have
inclusive events that anyone can attend.
Richard Symonds
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
Dalton
Sent: 09 January 2012 23:45
To: peterc(a)cix.compulink.co.uk; wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & Wikimedia UK
On 9 January 2012 23:34, Peter Cohen <peterc(a)cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
In-Reply-To:
<003b01cccecb$72bcf1d0$5836d570$(a)wikimedia.org.uk>
Excuse me but is the board really saying that Dr Buckner is a security
risk? That makes him sound like an axe murderer or something.
As mentioned, he has a history of "outing" people. I imagine it is in that
sense that he is considered a security risk (I've not discussed this
decision with anyone on the board, so I'm just speculating based on what I
know of the board). Some people like to keep their real life identities
secret and that is a little difficult when meeting people in person. You
need to be able to trust the people you are meeting.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org