There is something I thought I should mention as a UK member of this list.
Hate speech (including online) is illegal in the UK.
When the Bank of England announced that Elizabeth Fry would be dropped from the new £5
notes and replaced with Winston Churchill, it meant that there would be no women on
sterling bank notes (apart from the Queen).
Caroline Criado-Perez successfully campaigned for Jane Austin to be added to £10 notes and
received threats of rape and death.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10207231/Woman-who-campaigned-for-Jan…
That instigated an online campaign which resulted in Twitter adding its 'report'
button.
Isabella Sorley, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tweets included: "die you worthless
piece of crap", "go kill yourself" and, "I've only just got out of
prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!"
John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, made references to rape and added: "I will find
you (smiley face)".
Sorley was sentenced to 12 weeks
in prison, and Nimmo was jailed for 8
weeks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026
The law they broke was Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
If UK-based Wikipedian 'X' breaches s.127 of the Comms. Act due to something they
said on Wikipedia about UK-based Wikipedian 'Y' then they face criminal
prosecution and possibly jail.
The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but,
'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal systems and thresholds would make no
difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see what the public
fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should be taken against X whilst the
UK jailed him / her.
Marie
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:41:36 -0500
From: neotarf(a)gmail.com
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
Double standard. Where are all the usual voices protesting about "civility
police"? Where are all the arbitrators opining that they cannot set objective
standards for language?
Beeblebrox used to have an article about "fuck off" in his user space. It
didn't get him banned. In fact, he went on to become an administrator and arbitrator.
In the absence of objective standards, subjective standards are emerging, based on gender.
Using the f-word, or even criticizing male users, is becoming a male privilege on en.wp.
Anyone else who uses the word is "hostile" and exhibiting "battleground
behavior". I must also say I am very disappointed in GorillaWarfare's role here.
Maybe, just maybe, instead of just dismissing anything that is said by a woman editor, the
arbitration committee should investigate it. I am looking in particular at this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noti…
If it is true, there are a huge number of users recruited on external sites, who are not
there to build an encyclopedia, that will have huge implications for the survival of women
editors on Wikipedia. The arbitration committee is looking at WP:SPA, they should look at
WP:MEAT. And they should pay attention to who the ringleaders are, not just the throwaway
accounts.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProjec…
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProjec…
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProjec…
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Wom…
But, as has been pointed out on the current RFC,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_should_the_pol…
that would change the WP:OUTING policy to prohibit all mention of
outside accounts, including Reddit Men's Rights and Reddit Gamergate, "trying to
address the issues without being able to talk openly about the evidence is
difficult".
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Marie Earley <eiryel(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't know a lot about this case, but taking a cursory look at the diffs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&d…
...presumably an "excessive edit" is a derogatrory way of saying "a single
large edit". In which case I would probably have said the same as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&d…
To be feminist or to not be feminist...
I once read about a mother who went into a toy shop with her little girl. She was walking
towards the check-out with a toy fire truck and some Lego when she was stopped by a member
of staff who pointed out that the store had dolls. The mother said that her daughter
didn't like dolls, that she likes trucks. She was about to move off again when the
staff member pointed out that the store sold pastel Lego (as opposed to the primary
coloured bucket of Lego that she had picked up). I'm sure she didn't think of
herself as a feminist until that moment.
I find that most people who join feminist groups / gender gap mailing list etc. never
thought of themselves as feminists until they had a "Lego moment".
My Lego moment was reading this article:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/fashion-news/the-wag-wannabes-9… about a
19 year-old who was hoping to become the wife or girlfriend of a footballer (soccer
player).
"The lifestyle is amazing. Nice house, expensive
cars. Wherever
footballers go they are recognised and
have people looking up to them.
They know they
can be with anyone - it's a privilege when they pick
you."
Marie
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:24:12 -0500
From: carolmooredc(a)verizon.net
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense
against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other
policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with
positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put
their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of
a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was,
there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply
requesting his bit back.
The problem being that ArbCom is so political that most
members see
editors they dislike/disagree with on issues/content as disruptive even
if their disruption is minor compared to that of the editors they feel
more sympatico with. And of course if the "community" (i.e., gangs of
editors who are allies) decide to target someone it's just easier
politically to sanction those persons than not. And if they have a lot
of supporters it is safer NOT to sanction them.
This issue was very clear in GGTF arbitration where a few people were
targeted by most posters, over and over for the same issues, at least
til the end when an Arbitrator added a couple more needing sanctions.
It's less clear in Gamergate because there are more participants being
targeted by many more participants on many different issues.
CM
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap