The entire session was longer than just the Q&A, and dealt with ways to appropriately handle online harassment, coming from someone holding a named chair at a major university who is widely recognized as an expert on issues of online harrassment (one of *the* experts.) Since arbs get no formal training in how to handle online harrassment beyond what ENWP provides and a little bit of guidance from WMF, it's just flat out amazing that an arb who wasn't present for the session would refuse the minimal time committment. If they don't have that much free time for free expert guidance, they either don't care about online harrassment (which is an awful lot of what they deal with) or simply don't have time (in which, given the other time committments being an arb entails, means they can't possibly have time to be an arb.)
I think next election cycle two of my questions to every candidate will be "Did you watch Danielle Citron's keynote, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?" and "Did you watch Sumana Harihareswara's keynote (from wikiconf 2014,) and if so, what are your thoughts on it?" I have a hard time imagining voting for anyone who says they didn't have time to watch them, or who can't come up with a reasonable set of comments on them. I doubt I'm alone in that.
---- Kevin Gorman
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
FYI, a 45 minutes commitment. Not saying much more, I'm tired of being a punch bag for Arbs and ex-Arbs.
Fae
On 19 Oct 2015 19:47, "Kevin Gorman" kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
I've been out of touch with the world for most of the last week, but I'm extremely disappointed to see the only active arbitrator to comment on that discussion so far just asked for a tl;dr when given a two hour long video of free advice from a leading expert in online harassment issues. Almost every case arb takes deals with harassment in one form or another - given the time they spend discussing trivialities, let alone drafting cases and on private lists, I would hope that no arbitrator (none of the sitting ones have formal training in dealing with online harrassment, AFAIK, although I may be missing someone) would refuse to spend a much smaller amount of time hearing one of the top experts n the subject talk about it. If you can't accept a two hour time committment, you probably shouldn't be an arb.
Kevin Gorman
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Comments_...
Folks may be interested in watching the Q&A session at the recent WikiConference USA where gender and harassment was discussed for about 45 minutes.[1] It makes for an interesting summary of how Arbcom is perceived with regard to handling harassment cases, and the types of harassment of significant concern for our community.
This has been raised on the Arbcom noticeboard[2], it will be interesting to see how many current Arbcom members make a public comment, or indeed if they are perfectly happy with the way Arbcom currently works, or not.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap