Ach, I didn't realize they were citing research from 15 years ago. Also it is more about the type of in-person situations that Berkeley and other campuses have found themselves in the courts over recently, and not the type of online harassment that WP needs to solve (not to minimize the importance of the other issue). There was a proposal here, and discussion on the talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_consultation_2015/Ideas/Hire_a_harassment_expert This needs to be considered in conjunction with the dispute resolution process:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harassment_consultation_2015/Ideas/Hire_a_harassment_expert&diff=14943096&oldid=14933598 The fields of law and sociology are suggested here, but I am told that harassment is a whole field of its own, that has changed titles over the years. I don't see any WP articles about this, even though it's very much an issue.
If WP intends to continue to partner with GLAMs etc, they need to start getting up to speed on the anti-discrimination codes these institutions have to abide by. What is "title 9", "title 7"? What is "technological due process"? What kind of training programs are used most effective? How are non-profit organizations dealing with this? What about other online forums? And that is only the U.S. What are the British doing about this?
I would suggest that many organizations that are subject to federal anti-discrimination requirements are not going to be eager to expose themselves to lawsuits by collaborating with Wikipedia. They are going to either keep WP at arms length by assigning these liaison duties to interns and volunteers who are not subject to federal law or they will shun Wikipedia completely.
Yes, articles, please. This is the future direction of the Project. We need to understand this.