------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 16:34:35 -0400
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
        <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap
Message-ID:
        <CAPXs8yQyxUwuWPhHakXBDK6Npzyn+AWZWxjHEicd6ooXUido8A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

What a lovely and thoughtful essay, Sylvia.

For my part, I see a significant difference between sharing information
with people I choose to share information with, and posting my personal
details on a publicly accessible, top-10 website, where the people most
likely to abuse that information don't even need to log in to see it, and
where there are no privacy control options.

I have always gone to significant trouble to keep my personal information
to myself. I don't "do"  facebook, or twitter, or google+.  Several of my
family members (who share my rather obscure surname) have been subjected to
telephone calls, facebook and twitter messages intended to harass *me*.  I
do not participate in media interviews or any surveys where my personal
information would be included. I don't participate on websites where I know
personal information of wikipedians is exchanged, and in fact rarely access
them and then only with an anonymizing proxy.  For all intents and
purposes, I only participate regularly on one non-WMF website/forum....and
sure enough, at one point someone tracked down my account there and
manipulated other forum members to provide information about me, which was
later used to try to blackmail me in my role as an English Wikipedia
arbitrator.

Those worries are real, and these events do happen; however, much of it
relates to how "high profile" someone is.  One of the biggest downsides in
being amongst the small number of self-identifying women on WMF sites is
the fact that we become higher profile simply because of our rarity.  The
overwhelming majority of Wikimedians are never bothered in these ways; I'd
suggest that it's probably less than 1% of us who have been so aggressively
dealt with.  But when it happens, and especially if it's out of the blue,
it is an horrendous experience.

Risker/Anne






On 9 May 2013 14:58, 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<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment>,
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20130509/fe5b89cd/attachment.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


End of Gendergap Digest, Vol 28, Issue 21
*****************************************