I command Sarah, Sarah, Anne and few other women and men commenting on this
list for their tireless work trying to move the needle. I wish I had seen
more movement/women coming forward and stepping up – but I would not be
surprised if many of us were…. uncomfortable. I know I am.
or simply burned out … which seems to be the case.
I had to think long and hard about writing this. Sarah, once again is
trying to be constructive by creating momentum and a page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/Policy_revolution to capture and
focus conversations. I think it's a great initiative but I also think the
problem we're dealing with is more systemic and might need
a tougher conversation.
How can we 'speak openly' in a forum like "Policy Revolution" when a few
of
us are playing a different game – most folks here use their real
identities, take their contribution work at heart, we know who we are. But
then we have the Ghosts, those hiding behind the cloak of “Privacy”
(perverse effect of a well-meant policy I am sure) while
trolling, harassing, messing with images/content with impunity. If we are
serious about creating a broader more sustainable more representative
participation to the projects the WMF folks (those with some level of
mandate) need to seriously revise the community’s rules of engagement and
stand behind it.
A have been sitting on this note (below) for a while, I understand the need
for privacy in the context of political/individual/speech freedom and to
insure personal safety in some cases. This group is composed of some of the
smartest people on the planet, we surely can come up with some mechanism to
protect those who need protection (anonymity) while creating a healthy,
open, constructive, environment.
== NB: this was written shortly after Hersfold resignation, focuses on
harassment but its relevant to all questionable behavior.==
Accidental troll policy
My ID was recently deleted on Meta-Wiki, the reason given was: wait for it…
Vandalism. Little than I knew I had breached protocol – as a newbie I had
created a page on Meta and had clearly broken the rules. Or was it, since
then, I learned that your individual history (been banned/suspended, etc…)
determines your capacity of progressing in the ranks of WP – so this might
have been purely accidental or not.
But back to my point, after being notified of my ban, as a good citizen and
a steward of open-culture I felt it was my duty to get educated. I checked
the Wikipedia’s user policy. What I found was lengthy, detailed but overall
clear. Except for a portion that was particularly unsettling. The one
about “Use of Real Name and Harassment”. [[excerpt: use of real name may
make a contributor more vulnerable to issues such as
harassment<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment>nt>,
both on and off Wikipedia]]
After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator
Hersfold<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfold>in yesterday’s
Signpost I can’t let go of the idea that the policy might
actually enable the very problem it is trying to avoid <harassment> by
perpetuating the culture of obscurity and by allowing trolls to hide behind
anonymity.
In an era where information is a commodity, where online traceability is
child’s play for anyone with rudimentary tech skills I can’t imagine that
concealing one’s real-life identity on Wikipedia will minimize the
incidence of harassment. The reasons for
Hersfold<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfold>resignation
againshed a gloomy light on this. Granted, arbitration is a “hot seat”
to hold
but unless we are willing to put in place a “witness protection program”
style for wikipedians involved in conflict resolution, it will be
impossible to prevent this from happening again.
So the question I’m thorn with is who’s really benefiting from the “Privacy
- no Real name Policy”? The folks trying to do their job sensibly and
seeking some distance between their work on Wikipedia and their personal
lives/families/jobs or the trolls that haven’t yet found that clear
boundary and are, by design, allowed to create a toxic and unwelcoming
environment.
Looking at it from the other end. What if the system promoted total
transparency? Where everyone in it is really who they say they are. A
system where real-life ID is tied to the online work, no place to hide,
where the very act of signing up and becoming a wikipedian is a pledge for
civility, respect and trust. Where personal status is a currency based on
both hard and soft skills, (number/quality of contributions and the manner
in which we interact with each other). Maybe you get to play anonymously
for a while but if you want to get serious and become a ‘ranked’ wikipedian
tell us who you are.
I honestly don’t know how much implementation of a formal vetting system
would violate the foundation’s DNA – and it might - but knowing what
mechanisms/policies facilitate harassment will help us find solutions to
prevent it from perpetuating. In this case ‘anonymity’ could be a weak
link.
How about associating a Wikipedia ID to a mobile phone number at sign up,
send the access code and instructions to new users before they get started
– à la craigslist. If this is not acceptable let’s find another way to tie
in real-life ID with Wikipedia’s ID and keep the community healthy, truly
open and safe. Who do we risk losing by getting to know who we are? The
trolls – yes. because there will be no place to hide and play big bad wolf.
Who do we attract? Potentially everyone that has once considered
contributing to Wikipedia but found it to be unsafe and off-putting.
Some might argue: “look, this is not a social club, this is how we’ve
always done it, grow a skin or move along”. I’d say: totally agree,
institutional knowledge is important, let’s keep the good - and there is
plenty - and shed the bad. Wikipedia has evolved greatly in the past 10
years and so has the world, and general expectations for social
interactions have changed. We are steadily losing some and still missing
many voices on Wikipedia. Clearly harassment is not the chief cause, but
since *people* are the most important part (asset) of Wikipedia, we need to
start developing a much-needed social protocol and insure the free flow of
knowledge over ethos.
Sylvia