There is a tendency to ascribe a great deal of power to the Arbitration
Committee of English Wikipedia - and of the various arbitration committees,
it is the one with the greatest scope and perceived power. In fact, Arbcom
has almost no ability to manage the world outside of the pages of the
Wikipedia project, and even within the project it can only handle minuscule
portions of the activities. It has no power at all to control other
websites, can only take action against Wikipedians acting outside of the
project if there is an extremely clear and direct link between the
Wikipedia persona and the persona outside of WP, and is very wary of taking
action in the absence of direct links because many if not most arbitrators
and functionaries over the last 8-10 years have been the subject of
joe-jobs themselves. I've had to have three separate LinkedIn accounts
purporting to be me taken down over the last 8 years, for example; others
have had their personal images and names attached to accounts on porn
sites, paid editing sites, and a fair number of other unsavory sites - so
as a group we can honestly say "there's plenty of reason to doubt" in a lot
of cases.
Arbcom is not all-powerful. Even the full force of the WMF can only be
turned on to the most extreme cases of harassment; there simply aren't the
human resources to address comparatively run-of-the-mill harassment,
especially when it's occurring outside the walls of their projects. Not
even huge internet-based companies like Facebook, Twitter, or Yahoo have
the personnel or the ability to prevent or address harassment on unrelated
sites, and they have hundreds of times more "community managers" than the
WMF has.
To compare to a non-internet situation: How many police officers would be
needed to effectively stop catcalls being directed to women walking down
the street? Or preventing bullies from picking on the skinny kid?
We know the answer - there aren't enough cops in the world to stop these
things even in one medium-sized city. What needs to change is society's
attitude toward these activities - and because the internet isn't a single
society, the task is extremely difficult. The WMF isn't going to be able
to solve it, Arbcom doesn't have a hope of solving it, and as long as the
same privacy laws that prevent people from digging into deeply private
information about us also protect people whose behaviour is very much
unappreciated, I'm not sure the legal systems of most democratic countries
will be able to solve it.
Risker/Anne
On 27 May 2015 at 00:21, Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This might also be a good time to mention the
conversation about
harassment on the recent Inspire grant project. Fourteen of the proposals
were concerned with managing harassment. I don't believe I ever saw anyone
from the Foundation comment on this.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Community_discussion_on_hara…
Instead we now have the English Wikipedia's Arbcom taking on their third
or fourth sexual harassment within the year, without having even
established a working definition of what it is.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Totally understandable. I too have also been
sexually harassed and
doxxed, on at least two other sites besides WP. The ArbCom and the WMF are
well aware of it, and have been unwilling to lift a finger against it.
There is a book about cyber harassment making the rounds: "Hate Crimes in
Cyberspace" by Danielle Keats Citron ISBN 978-0-674-36829-3 describing both
the horrible price that individuals pay and the legal underpinnings of the
problem. It's a pity WP is not in the vanguard of this movement in the same
way it has pioneered in other areas. Instead, those who report harassment
will find themselves treated worse than the harassers.
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net
wrote:
On 5/26/2015 8:35 PM, LB wrote:
Due to off-wiki harassment, I have retired. Thank
you to those of you
who have been friendly with me over the past year.
Lightbreather
Plus all that on-wiki harassment!
I did notice something interesting and actually positive in
Lightbreather's arbitration, compared to GGTF and others I've seen.
Which is that now editors only can comment on Arbitration talk pages in
their own sections. This lessens opportunities for drive-by harassing
taunts against, and replies against, various editors who harassers are
trying to get kicked off Wikipedia. They have to take responsibility in
their own sections. Perhaps my screaming about "institutionalized
harassment at Arbcom" had at least this minor effect... I hope they keep
it for all future arbitrations...
Announcement on this page, after which went into effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ligh…
Also in effect here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ligh…
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap