Some journos take corrections easily, and some don't. I've had people directly misquote me at major outlets where I had the call on record (with their consent, since CA is a 2 party consent state for recording calls,) and refuse to make corrections, and had other people accept my corrections at face value and put them in to place. I may not have time to do so today, but would encourage anyone interested (probably better if it's only a person or two and not a horde in this case) to contact the author of the Atlantic piece about the issues. Probably those directly interviewed by the journalist would be the best candidates to put in for a correction. Best, Kevin Gorman On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I was directly interviewed for this article but my contributions were scrapped. I have Emma's email and I would be happy to reach out to her if you'd like to list a set of uniform "corrections"? No guarantee she'd be able to change them but it's a start if you'd like? Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity or errors.

WSC, the evidence as to who posted the porn images was, I would say, conclusive. We nevertheless ended up with a situation in which a man who had been engaged in harassment (much of which was onwiki and had been going on for about a year) was let off the hook, and the harassed woman was banned. There was a similar situation in the GGTF case <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF>, so the Lightbreather case was not an unfortunate one-off. For example, the man who was blocked for harassment during the Lightbreather case <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather> should have been blocked for it during the GGTF case, but wasn't. He only ended up being blocked during the Lightbreather case because he admitted that he had done it. Otherwise he might still be editing. Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist. (See this selection of stories <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Media_and_research>.) Rather than arguing about which details various journalists got wrong, we should focus on what they got right and how we can fix it. Sarah On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Jonathan, I think there's a bit of talking past each other going on. Rehashing details of one of the many dramafest Arbcom cases is not worthwhile. systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist." Improving reputation and recognizing that there is a systemic problem is a far more useful direction to take. Think about a bit of "reframing". P.S. I was approached by the Atlantic due to my work in the area of revert-wars and the potential relationship to bias. I did a little digging around it, but my thoughts are too slow to satisfy journalists' deadlines. ;-) Fae On 22 October 2015 at 18:12, WereSpielChequers &lt;werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly, although I rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect the oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion amongst themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care who care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a greater proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote. Daniel Case

It wasn't a "suggestion". My point, more bluntly, was that there are an awful lot of Wikipedians, maybe not all or even many of them people who make edits on a daily basis, but do so regularly, for whom the ArbCom is irrelevant. And that perception would be independent of any editing metrics. On another note, was 2014 the year we went to a secret ballot to elect arbitrators? Or had that been the year before? Dan Case

Neither do I, because it wasn't a claim I was making, although perhaps I could have been clearer in my wording and said that there is a sizable group of active Wikipedians, perhaps a majority, who perceive ArbCom, when they perceive it at all, as irrelevant to them. That said, your other points are pretty much valid, although I am not sure that even everyone who has the time to become informed prior to voting will have the inclination to do so. Daniel Case

I'm going to bring this thread back to its original topic. I did some talking and some digging tonight, and it seems to be time to pull up a few relevant links. It's pretty obvious that Community Advocacy is working on harassment issues, including gender-based harassment; I understand a blog post is imminent, as is a serious effort at gathering data from the community. In the interim: Reminder of commitment and work that is underway with Community Advocacy - I have been assured that it has continued despite Philippe's having left the WMF: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Community_discussion_on_hara… Some of the research they have gathered and reviewed - and maybe some of this will be useful for communities directly as well: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Online_harassment_resource_guide And more research and citations: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Advocacy/Citations_on_Harassment_… There's this belief that either the WMF or Arbcom can control the behaviour of people on every one of Wikipedia's 20 million pages. It isn't gonna happen no matter what. Risker/Anne

It might be interesting to look at when the 500-edit requirement was put in place for certain articles that were targeted by off-site editing groups, and whether that correlates with anything. It looks like the number of new articles peaked some time ago. On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:45 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

I confess I had too much fun sparring with them yesterday, but had enough and don't feel like responding to last half dozen responses to myself, or those to lots of others who were sympathetic to the views of so many women on Wikipedia. The "arguments" are so much like the harassment we got on GGTF, though with more direct insults. Basically: Prove there's sexism; prove that more articles about or by women are AfD'd; prove that you women aren't just a lot of victim whiners who just need to man up. Plus various absurd ruminations on the wickedness of women in general... Unfortunately, I haven't looked at what's currently easily available on either Wikipedia/GGTF or Wikimedia/Gender gap as links that answer these most typical questions... Too tired today... Been watching Benghazi hearing and see the same old thing: harass Hillary with petty nonsense to make her look bad. But don't identify the real crime: did securing the weapons mean rounding them up for rebels in Syria, something that would be illegal under US law? Were the attackers pissed off cause US wouldn't give THEM the weapons? Like on Wikipedia, harass a woman for every little misspeak or misstep but don't admit the real issue is you hate a) women and/or b) their POV on some issue(s) and want them gone. Of course the difference is many Republicans (like McCain) supported arming the Syrian rebels. However, generally those with similar POVs on Wikipedia don't attack each other unrelentingly, even if they are females. Then it's "you take your allies where you can get them."

Personally I'm skeptical of our (this mailing list's) ability to reform ArbCom. The candidates who are the most tolerant of harassment and misogyny seem to always be the most popular candidates. Thus the outcome of the ArbCom cases are hardly surprising. Do we even have a slate of candidates that are worth supporting? On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Sarah (SV) &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: included on-wiki edits from that account, and an old and active account on the porn site, not one recently set up.​ ​If evidence of a similar nature had been presented against Lightbreather, I have no doubt that she would have been banned as a result of it. There is a perception that the benefit of the doubt is routinely extended to men, and that women engaging in the same behaviour are viewed differently. This is true in the real world, where 50 percent are women (e.g., men are viewed as authoritative, where women are viewed as aggressive), so it would be surprising if it were not true in a mostly male environment. We have to do something. Suggestion: women coming before the committee could require that certain committee members not participate. We could extend that to any harassment case. Or we could set up a jury system, instead of one fixed committee, with limited challenges permitted. Sarah

Ah yes, let's have a jury system. Except that nobody can be compelled to serve (what would we do? desysop someone? block them from adding content?), and the [type of] people most likely to volunteer are...well, arbcom. Or the arbcom candidates whom the community had already rejected. Please no more speaking of juries. I've been on juries, and I've been on Arbcom. I can guarantee you that juries are absolutely no better, and are even less likely to look at evidence than arbcom is. I don't think Arbcom is wonderful; I think this year's arbcom has lost its way in a manner that I can't recall seeing since 2007-08. But I have zero faith that, on a website where better than 70% of active contributors never take part in the "meta" part of the site, that "jury duty" would do anything positive. I do, however, believe it would have a negative impact on retaining active contributors who have no taste for the drama. Risker On 22 October 2015 at 16:10, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase(a)frontiernet.net&gt; wrote:

On 22 October 2015 at 16:27, Sarah (SV) &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I tend to agree with you on this, Sarah. I'm a little less certain about this one: if there are five parties to a case, and everyone decides to brand three different arbitrators as sexist/racist/homophobic etc, you're down to .... nobody. That was what RFCs and mediation committees did, although I grant that their "decisions" were not binding. They fell apart - RFCs because genuinely uninvolved Wikipedians stopped participating. The Mediation committee fell apart because there were so few people who were any good at dispute resolution actually mediating them, and also because mediation required the "participation agreement" of long lists of supposed parties. (I was once listed as a "party" for a mediation on an article where I made one edit to remove poop vandalism.) There's no evidence at all that jury systems are any more fair or accurate or impartial or unbiased than any other dispute resolution systems. (A quick look at the number of convicted prisoners who have subsequently been exonerated proves my point.) Add to that the simple fact that "volunteer" pools of jurors are, simply by dint of numbers, going to be made up of the same types of people who are already arbitrators/functionaries/admins (or potentially people who were rejected for those responsibilities because they were unsuitable), and that compelling participation of people who have deliberately NOT wanted to participate in such activities is more likely to result in those individuals leaving the project entirely rather than making great decisions (other than the obvious "this is stupid, ban them all so I can get back to my categorization"). In fact, I suspect that a jury system made up of conscripted jurors would actually result in much harsher sanctions all around. There are some who argue that would not be a bad thing. Risker/Anne

On 22 October 2015 at 17:31, Sarah (SV) &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I'd suggest ensuring that there is not 100% change every year (so keeping some form of the tranches), because someone's got to be around who has some experience; realistically, we're starting to see a return to the times where fewer arbs are completing their full terms and so you're going to get better than 50% change every year. On the other hand, I agree that incumbency has been an issue. Suggest a 2 year break; if there's someone the community thinks is good at the job, they'll never have the chance for that person to do it again if a 5-year break is required. (And I want you to think about this...who's going to do the job? It's still going to be a cruddy job no matter how much is divested from it.) Not automatically being entitled to hold CU or oversight isn't likely to change things for arbs - if they were CU or OS beforehand, they'd continue in those roles while they are on the committee, just as many arbs continue to edit or carry out routine admin tasks; after all, it's important for arbs to keep involved in the community as they were before election. More useful would be to relieve them of the "responsibility" of selecting CU and OS, and not granting them automatic access to the tools. The community should have grown into selecting for those roles 3-5 years ago. There are times when the arbs may need access to the CU/OS data (the "Sockpuppetry" case of earlier this year is a good example), but there are other options such as written requests to CU/OS for data, or view-only access for suppressed edits, that should be sufficient. While I agree with the intent, we may have a different definition of "silly" - so perhaps a bit more definitive would be helpful here. However, I don't think "gaming the system" is nearly as common as some people would have us believe, and in my experience about 90% of recusal requests would not have had any adverse effect on the outcome of the case. Arbitrators could afford to swallow their pride a bit on this. I was going to say, and even started to type, "unless something has really changed"...but I think something *has* really changed in the last couple of years. Even I can see lots of evidence that those off-wiki discussions are more frequent. On the other hand, don't think they're all happening on the mailing list. Skype, hangouts, gchats, smaller circulation personal emails....just as likely. Not much benefit to anyone clerking the list. Incidentally, the "functionary as clerk" was tried in 2009. It lasted 2 months. Poor guy nearly died of boredom. See above - agree that CU/OS can, with some careful work, be done more effectively by the community. A word of warning, though. Compared to every other project under the WMF umbrella, we are the most vicious about elections (RFA) and reappointments. Set hard activity standards, but please don't require annual reappointment elections or you'll wipe out CU/OS in no time. It's pretty much impossible for the community to assess the quality of work of a CU - it's hard enough for other CUs to assess it. Agree. Does it become a "jury" trial if one of 15 people listed as parties requests one? Who decides which "parties" are really parties enough to have that right? What happens if none of the "small list of experienced editors" is willing or able to be available for the period of time that even a simple case takes? (Keep in mind there are no simple cases, those have been dealt with at ANI and AN for years.) What's a suitable timeframe for 15 people to read and analyse 500 pages of evidence then come up with a proposal to resolve the issue? (The evidence itself is not usually 500 pages, it is all the links that are added which need also to be reviewed in context - not just the diff but the discussion - that makes up the overwhelming percentage of evidence.) This should go at the Idea Lab. In fact, I think it has before. It would fit into one of the hypothetical "strategies" that the WMF is bandying about right now, although in fairness they've been bandying it about for as long as I've been editing. I'm not entirely certain of the value of this - but not opposed to it. The above wouldn't solve everything, but I think it would help. It would > Sarah > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> On 22 October 2015 at 16:27, Sarah (SV) &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is asked to excuse themselves >>> from a case should do so, within reason. >>>>> I tend to agree with you on this, Sarah. >>>>>>> But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as sexist should be >>> able to require recusal. Otherwise the case is hobbled before it begins. >>> Ditto for anyone with concerns about racism or homophobia. >>>>> I'm a little less certain about this one: if there are five parties to a >> case, and everyone decides to brand three different arbitrators as >> sexist/racist/homophobic etc, you're down to .... nobody. >>>>>>> I would like to see a jury system replace the committee, with small >>> groups chosen to resolve particular issues. The committee has not worked >>> for a long time. It isn't the fault of any individual or group. It's a >>> combination of the way Arbs are nominated and elected, and the way they end >>> up cloistered away from the community. It creates a "thin blue line" >>> mentality. I would like to see a grassroots approach, at least as an >>> experiment. >>>>>> That was what RFCs and mediation committees did, although I grant that >> their "decisions" were not binding. They fell apart - RFCs because >> genuinely uninvolved Wikipedians stopped participating. The Mediation >> committee fell apart because there were so few people who were any good at >> dispute resolution actually mediating them, and also because mediation >> required the "participation agreement" of long lists of supposed parties. >> (I was once listed as a "party" for a mediation on an article where I made >> one edit to remove poop vandalism.) >>> There's no evidence at all that jury systems are any more fair or >> accurate or impartial or unbiased than any other dispute resolution >> systems. (A quick look at the number of convicted prisoners who have >> subsequently been exonerated proves my point.) Add to that the simple fact >> that "volunteer" pools of jurors are, simply by dint of numbers, going to >> be made up of the same types of people who are already >> arbitrators/functionaries/admins (or potentially people who were rejected >> for those responsibilities because they were unsuitable), and that >> compelling participation of people who have deliberately NOT wanted to >> participate in such activities is more likely to result in those >> individuals leaving the project entirely rather than making great decisions >> (other than the obvious "this is stupid, ban them all so I can get back to >> my categorization"). In fact, I suspect that a jury system made up of >> conscripted jurors would actually result in much harsher sanctions all >> around. There are some who argue that would not be a bad thing. >>> Risker/Anne >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> 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

Carol, I think you're missing something important here. Aside from the fact that this would cost about $2 million a year, the structure you are proposing would only be providing support for English Wikipedia. (That is a lot more than the budget for the entire global Community Advocacy department. Just to keep things in perspective.) Now there are a couple of questions to consider here. The first is: What problem, exactly, are we trying to solve? Next would be: is this a problem that is endemic on all projects? (I think we all know the answer is "no".) So then we move to: Where all is it a problem? Large projects? Small projects? Old projects? New projects? Wikipedias only? And the corollary: Where is it *not* a problem? what are the characteristics of those projects where Problem X is not considered a significant problem? And finally: Will this actually fix the problem? I'm not convinced this is the best way to spend about 3% of the total budget of the entire Wikimedia Foundation, especially when less expensive solutions, and ones that do not involve the WMF essentially taking over its biggest, most active community, have not really been tried. Sarah has made some interesting proposals in another thread that have the chance to develop some momentum if nurtured carefully. This...well, that's an awful lot of money. Risker/Anne On 22 October 2015 at 19:08, Carol Moore dc &lt;carolmooredc(a)verizon.net&gt; wrote:

I haven't followed ARBCOM closely enough this year to be quite as scathing as Risker, but the what little I have seen is very disappointing. I haven't been an arb, but I have done jury service, and I'm a fan of the system. But it relies on conscription to draft people in for a task that they are literally locked in a room to do. If a case were only an hour or so of time then I think you could experiment with inviting panels of a random thirty or so of our three thousand or of most active editors. My guess is that a random thirty would give you half a dozen who'd respond - you could tweak the numbers if my guess is out. But I'm not confident that this would work for cases that require more than a couple of hours involvement, or that involve personal information and thereby require "private sessions". I doubt there are sufficient such cases for a jury system to make a meaningful contribution to the system. Reforming arbcom is difficult. Influencing its election rather less so, I haven't done a voters guide for a few years but I'd commend doing so to anyone who has the time to thoroughly check the candidates. On reform, I rather like the panel system, not because a panel of five arbs will make much better choices than a dozen arbs, but because only having five arbs on each panel would reduce the workload, hopefully to something manageable. A lighter load gives the possibility of more people considering arbcom, and even of arbs engaging more with the community on non arb stuff. Another option is to invest in training arbs and functionaries. Both on technical training - if Sarah and Kevin are right re the Lightbreather case then it may just be that they didn't know how to get or read the evidence; Also they could be given the sort of training that UK magistrates go on. Question to Risker, what sort of training do they currently undertake? On 22 October 2015 at 22:04, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

I would also that the “lists” referred to were in fact the category pages, a distinction that I allow may be lost outside of the project but means something to us (That whole thing could easily have been avoided with a sterner reminder to use the {{distinguished subcategory}} template in the process of sorting. My $0.02). Daniel Case

The Signpost has an article, "Women and Wikipedia, the world s watching" and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-21/Edito… and "In the media: Wikipedia's hostility to women" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-21/In_th… On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Kevin Gorman &lt;kgorman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: