Two good posts.Bear in mind though that there is also a half-way house solution, whereby contributors would identify to the Foundation, but remain at liberty to use a pseudonymous user name.
Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community roles (as indeed it is today).
AndreasOn Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Katherine Casey <fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
What you're describing sounds a lot like Citizendium, which is about as much of a failure as it's possible to get in the crowdsourcing world. Users who were told they couldn't contribute unless they turned over their real-life details mostly just opted to not sign up. The ones who did sign up found themselves mercilessly sorted by an imposed pseudo-meritocracy of real-life credentials, and what's left now is a a handful of "editors" who rule now-empty topic kingdoms.As far as safety, knowing what I know about the number of violent threats and libelous statements that are directed at Wikipedians quite regularly (and to which, I think it could be argued, female editors can be disproportionately subjected), I don't think there's much ground to stand on when it comes to assuring people that somehow they'll be more safe when the people who hate them have access to their real names, phone numbers, and addresses. I mean, I see how you could come to the conclusion that anonymity gives the trolls another weapon to use against the non-trolls, but unless you first do something about the threats, etc, you're going to have a hell of a time convincing anyone it's in their best interest to give the people threatening them their name and home address. Keeping ourselves as safe as possible is not a "game" we play for fun; it's literally a survival strategy when you know there are people out there trying to physically harm Wikipedians.Rather than forcing contributors to give up their personal details in exchange for being allowed to edit, why not focus on strengthening the harassment policies and the WMF's relationships with law enforcement, and maybe create relationships with some counselling services, such that anyone who makes another editor feels threatened or harassed is no longer welcome, and anyone who is threatened or harassed is completely supported?On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Sylvia Ventura <sylvia.ventura@gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________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, both on and off Wikipedia]]
After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator 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 resignation again shed 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
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap