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 harassmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment, both on and off Wikipedia]]
After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator Hersfoldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfoldin 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 Hersfoldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfoldresignation 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
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.comwrote:
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 harassmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment, both on and off Wikipedia]]
After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator Hersfoldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfoldin 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 Hersfoldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfoldresignation 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
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).
Andreas
On 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.comwrote:
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 harassmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment, both on and off Wikipedia]]
After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator Hersfoldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfoldin 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 Hersfoldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfoldresignation 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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
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.
This would involve incredible overhead on the Foundation's role. It also
wouldn't provide any real protection for the individuals being harassed.
Let's be clear here; there are really two types of harassment we should be concerned about. The first is, simply, illegal; where such harassment occurs, and a complaint to the police results, the WMF has procedures in place to provide (for example) IP addresses and other identifying information on receipt of a valid request from a court, and these can then percolate back through ISPs and such to identify the person responsible for the statements or actions. All very simple, all very well-handled. I'd argue our failing here is not in not having a mechanism for illegal harassment, but simply a greater societal issue; internet harassment is, while a crime, something with few benefits for the police to prosecute. We can't solve for that; we could reduce the barrier a bit by cutting out the middle man and being able to provide the police with the real-world identity of contributors, sure, but again, that's going to be a ton of work.
The second type of harassment is motivated by, well, John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.[1] Some people, to be cynical, behave well because people see and judge them by their behaviour. As a result, when you get anonymity or pseudonymity - more specifically, a type of pseudonymity that does not overlap with their real-world reputation, or reputation in other domains, you get people misbehaving, because their actions and the consequences of those actions cannot follow them back to a reputation they care about. It's as simple as that. Merely knowing that someone, somewhere, knows who they are is not going to get these people to act differently; there is no immediate action/reaction interaction between "them misbehaving" and "this biting them on the backside".
[1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community roles (as
indeed it is today).
Then the change is...?
Andreas
On 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.comwrote:
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 harassmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment, both on and off Wikipedia]]
After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator Hersfoldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfoldin 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 Hersfoldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfoldresignation 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
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
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
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.
This would involve incredible overhead on the Foundation's role. It also
wouldn't provide any real protection for the individuals being harassed.
Let's be clear here; there are really two types of harassment we should be concerned about. The first is, simply, illegal; where such harassment occurs, and a complaint to the police results, the WMF has procedures in place to provide (for example) IP addresses and other identifying information on receipt of a valid request from a court, and these can then percolate back through ISPs and such to identify the person responsible for the statements or actions. All very simple, all very well-handled. I'd argue our failing here is not in not having a mechanism for illegal harassment, but simply a greater societal issue; internet harassment is, while a crime, something with few benefits for the police to prosecute. We can't solve for that; we could reduce the barrier a bit by cutting out the middle man and being able to provide the police with the real-world identity of contributors, sure, but again, that's going to be a ton of work.
The second type of harassment is motivated by, well, John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.[1] Some people, to be cynical, behave well because people see and judge them by their behaviour. As a result, when you get anonymity or pseudonymity - more specifically, a type of pseudonymity that does not overlap with their real-world reputation, or reputation in other domains, you get people misbehaving, because their actions and the consequences of those actions cannot follow them back to a reputation they care about. It's as simple as that. Merely knowing that someone, somewhere, knows who they are is not going to get these people to act differently; there is no immediate action/reaction interaction between "them misbehaving" and "this biting them on the backside".
[1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community roles
(as indeed it is today).
Then the change is...?
The difference might be for example that editing biographies of living persons would be a right reserved to editors who have identified to the Foundation. I am pretty certain that this would have prevented cases like Johann Hari's, for example.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipe...
It would also prevent people from returning with sock after sock to add negative material to the biographies of people they don't like, or indeed fluff up their own.
Let's not forget that a significant number of editors and administrators have for years edited under their real names, or have their identities known. At the moment, I believe the only editors required to identify are arbitrators and chapter members. It would be conceivable to expand that requirement to various other user rights.
Andreas
It would also be a massive resourcing challenge, particularly to get identification working across all projects. What is ideal is not always what is feasible.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
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.
This would involve incredible overhead on the Foundation's role. It also
wouldn't provide any real protection for the individuals being harassed.
Let's be clear here; there are really two types of harassment we should be concerned about. The first is, simply, illegal; where such harassment occurs, and a complaint to the police results, the WMF has procedures in place to provide (for example) IP addresses and other identifying information on receipt of a valid request from a court, and these can then percolate back through ISPs and such to identify the person responsible for the statements or actions. All very simple, all very well-handled. I'd argue our failing here is not in not having a mechanism for illegal harassment, but simply a greater societal issue; internet harassment is, while a crime, something with few benefits for the police to prosecute. We can't solve for that; we could reduce the barrier a bit by cutting out the middle man and being able to provide the police with the real-world identity of contributors, sure, but again, that's going to be a ton of work.
The second type of harassment is motivated by, well, John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.[1] Some people, to be cynical, behave well because people see and judge them by their behaviour. As a result, when you get anonymity or pseudonymity - more specifically, a type of pseudonymity that does not overlap with their real-world reputation, or reputation in other domains, you get people misbehaving, because their actions and the consequences of those actions cannot follow them back to a reputation they care about. It's as simple as that. Merely knowing that someone, somewhere, knows who they are is not going to get these people to act differently; there is no immediate action/reaction interaction between "them misbehaving" and "this biting them on the backside".
[1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community roles
(as indeed it is today).
Then the change is...?
The difference might be for example that editing biographies of living persons would be a right reserved to editors who have identified to the Foundation. I am pretty certain that this would have prevented cases like Johann Hari's, for example.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipe...
It would also prevent people from returning with sock after sock to add negative material to the biographies of people they don't like, or indeed fluff up their own.
Let's not forget that a significant number of editors and administrators have for years edited under their real names, or have their identities known. At the moment, I believe the only editors required to identify are arbitrators and chapter members. It would be conceivable to expand that requirement to various other user rights.
Andreas
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Andreas wrote:
At the moment, I believe the only editors required to identify are arbitrators and chapter members.
For the first, no, all functionaries (I had to provide proof of identity when I got the oversight bit) as well as arbs have to identify to the Foundation. Chapter members ... do you mean chapter board members? Daniel Case
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Andreas wrote:
At the moment, I believe the only editors required to identify are
arbitrators and chapter members.
For the first, no, all functionaries (I had to provide proof of identity when I got the oversight bit) as well as arbs have to identify to the Foundation.
Yes, I forgot. Thanks for the correction.
Chapter members ... do you mean chapter board members?
Chapter membership application forms ask for name and address and require payment of a membership fee.
Andreas
OK, points taken below from Oliver Keyes about talking to trolls.
But here's what (knock wood) got my well known long term abuse harasser (1000+ nasty and/or threatening emails, hundreds of reverts of edits to me during last 6 months) off my back without going to the cops --which I easily could have done, and still would do if I felt they were coming to my side of the continent with ill intent:
*Got roll back which helped with all the danged reverts. *Updated and cleaned up his Long-term abuser page and made sure it was real clear what the various modus operandi were and how to deal with them since I'm not the only one he goes off on, just one of the worst recently *Put Wikimedia foundation email in a box at the top of project page so editors with similar problems knew one place to go right away *Added a bunch of info on the laws on cyber-harassment in HIS state and linked to the larger article from the abuse page *Every time he'd have a new spate of insulting me I'd go to some article relevant to arrest/prosecution/imprisonment/psychiatric evaluation for his various crimes and do some minor clean up, just so he'd get the message
since then just got a few non-threatening nasty emails and a couple reverts; knock wood again that it keeps on working!!
So starting long-term abuse pages for harassers and using them is a really good idea.
CM
On 5/9/2013 4:42 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
This would involve incredible overhead on the Foundation's role. It also wouldn't provide any real protection for the individuals being harassed.
Let's be clear here; there are really two types of harassment we should be concerned about. The first is, simply, illegal; where such harassment occurs, and a complaint to the police results, the WMF has procedures in place to provide (for example) IP addresses and other identifying information on receipt of a valid request from a court, and these can then percolate back through ISPs and such to identify the person responsible for the statements or actions. All very simple, all very well-handled. I'd argue our failing here is not in not having a mechanism for illegal harassment, but simply a greater societal issue; internet harassment is, while a crime, something with few benefits for the police to prosecute. We can't solve for that; we could reduce the barrier a bit by cutting out the middle man and being able to provide the police with the real-world identity of contributors, sure, but again, that's going to be a ton of work.
On 5/9/2013 4:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
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).
Andreas
That has been my thought as well, for particularly obstreperous editors and not just admins. Those who manage despite various warning and blocks to hang on and wreak their havoc editing and behavior wise. (Not to mention suspected registered sock puppets!)
Once they realize that if they really start acting up they will have to have to be vetted as a real person, one honestly trying to contribute, they might think twice about whether they want to "keep it up" - whatever it is.
Of course, you'd probably have to hire a couple people just to decide who gets to contact their user page and tell them "call the office" and why...
As a person with a strong POV on some topics I tell others with strong POVs to try to get into the "Wikipedia first" head, which makes it easier to edit in light of policy and to step back when you know your POV is getting out of control.
This sort of thing might help with that...
carol in dc
So your suggestion is that to prevent abuse, we only require abusers to identify with the Foundation? Otherwise we....what, exactly?
A phrase involving the illegalising of catapults and the subsequent shift in owner demographics comes to mind, here.
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
On 5/9/2013 4:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
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).
Andreas
That has been my thought as well, for particularly obstreperous editors and not just admins. Those who manage despite various warning and blocks to hang on and wreak their havoc editing and behavior wise. (Not to mention suspected registered sock puppets!)
Once they realize that if they really start acting up they will have to have to be vetted as a real person, one honestly trying to contribute, they might think twice about whether they want to "keep it up" - whatever it is.
Of course, you'd probably have to hire a couple people just to decide who gets to contact their user page and tell them "call the office" and why...
As a person with a strong POV on some topics I tell others with strong POVs to try to get into the "Wikipedia first" head, which makes it easier to edit in light of policy and to step back when you know your POV is getting out of control.
This sort of thing might help with that...
carol in dc
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Reading what people have said on this and the previous thread and bearing in mind Sarah’s request for actionable ideas about the Commons problem that sparked these threads, I make a suggestion below about what this organisation could do to have an impact.
This is bigger than Gender Gap - as various people including Russavia and the two Sarahs have said before. Bigger in terms of who it affects (women and others too); bigger in terms of needing a organisation wide effort to have an effect. I see it as an organisational problem and that means individuals, however passionate, can have little effect without an organisational strategy to "change workplace behaviour" (if you understand editors to be "workers"), so that people of good will can get on with it.
The policy under discussion should cover the whole Wiki project but especially Commons, where workload and categorisation problems add to policy compliance problems. Evidently, we have the means to get the policy going. Policies, however, only inform practice. They are not practice itself. To produce change we need to identify what we are doing that contributes to the problem and change that.
Is suggest framing our response as a whole-of-organisation *technology*, *policy and curation project *that is needed as a result of organisational growth. Then:
1. *Write *the policy, including the references to safe work places and adherence to the educational goal, taking account of other best practice policies in other workplaces;
2. *Align* it with the mission and other legal requirements such as privacy;
3. *Reform* the Commons software;
4. *Implement* the software and the policy.
*The first task* seems to be already underway - with the Board, the meta page and this group contributing.
*The second task* means looking into the related legal issues and especially emphasising the overall educational goal. (Every project, Wikimedia included, is entitled to its goal and scope; every worker is entitled to safety.)
*The third task* – reforming the software is obviously a big project in itself but one that I think would help resolve many of the downstream problems (the bullying, policy breaches and categorisation backlog. The cataloguing backlog is like the task that libraries are faced with as they cope with the need to digitise their collections. Such an approach also intersects with the need identified by User:Multichill (Next generation categories)http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Multichill/Next_generation_categoriesto solve the architecture problem.
This is how the Board and the community together should tackle this problem. Therefore - what I suggest is that the board request that the WMF allocate funds specifically to a *whole-of-commons software revamp project*. This is not the same as the 'image filter' report from the other year, but the more fundamental issue that MediaWiki is not designed to be a Digital Asset Management software. Either we need to allocate specific funds to do that, or we need look at different software entirely. All the discussion of specific content problems are symptoms of the fact that the software isn't designed to handle the goal that Commons sets out to achieve.
* *
*The fourth task* is to implement and the new software and continue assertively implementing the organisation’s new policy regarding harassment.
*Summary*
**
Overall, we need a change management project with a new piece of software at its heart - the sort of thing that organisations routinely have to do. Indeed, the WMF is currently doing one with the Visual Editor. However, it does need planning: for example, write the policy, align the goals, reform the software and follow-through. (Organisations often fail at implementation.)
The objectives would be to:
- institute an appropriate cataloguing system;
- catch up on the backlog of Commons work;
- reset the organisational norms.
Whiteghost.ink
P.S. If it is any consolation, we are just the same as other large organisations with a mainly male membership - the army, the Catholic Church, and all-male residential colleges, for example. Constant monitoring is needed in each such organisation, as repeated and scarcely credible levels of bullying, harassment and even criminal behaviour flare up or become entrenched practice. It threatens the overall mission, the organisation's reputation and the good work of most of its members, as well of course, as the well-being of some individuals, not all of them women. This is a behavioural trend that needs constant monitoring and from time to time,major interventions, such as serious policy reviews and/or sackings. I have worked with a couple of leaders who have struggled with this. Each organisation has its own context - the Army has its enforced aggression, the Church has its enforced celibacy and we have the internet's anonymity along with no authority over anyone.
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 harassmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment, both on and off Wikipedia]]
After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator Hersfoldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfoldin 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 Hersfoldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfoldresignation 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
Hi Sylvia
It seems the crux of your argument is against the nature of the Internet itself, rather than anything specific to Wikipedia. There is nothing unique about anonymity on Wikipedia. In fact, it could be argued that internet itself promotes anonymity - Internet protocol don't require any real user identification for access, beyond giving a rough idea of someone's access point, the only information that is there is what a user willingly chooses to divulge. As the adage goes - On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.[1] And in this day and age, a dog can indeed have a FB profile, a twitter account, gmail, a youtube channel, a tumblr and even a Wikipedia account (TOS doesn't have anything against dogs....I think). I don't see what is unique on Wikipedia that promotes pseudonymous or anonymous users anymore than other places - it would always come down to what someone chooses to reveal and their own level of personal boundaries.
Then there is the entire idea about the wisdom of the crowd, which implies that the individual is irrelevant to a certain extent, nameless at best. It is the collective that gives the crowd its identity and strength - to that purpose it is easier to join the crowd, as it is easy to leave.
There is something also worth mentioning here about American/European elitism, where coming from places in Middle-east, South-America, and parts of Asia, associating your political opinion with your real-world identity can have very real and dire repercussions. In India, for example, two women were arrested for expressing their opinion on FB at the demise of a political figure, I believe one of them posted a comment and the other "liked" it on Facebook.[2] They were both arrested in the middle of the night by police from a completely different area. And that is probably one of the tamest example I could think of, when you consider what the political situation is in the parts of the middle-east. I'm sure I can pull up horrifying stories about bloggers in Egypt or Iran or elsewhere, who don't truly share the luxury of free speech.
Then the second implication, I don't think anonymity alone permits someone to cross any lines. It would be a facile argument to disprove, that once anonymity is removed from the equation that you can expect someone to be more civil. You still don't know anything about the person on the other end, neither would they about you, besides what you choose to reveal - you would remain two perfect strangers. Now, implying that associating their name with that a single comment to you, would be singled out and have real-world implications, be it work or family - would be another stretch. All this seems like a case of "telling on someone" as children, usually their parents and expecting intervention. Online platforms already have system that resembles this, whether its an admin, or flagging something or contacting support. Then, most work-places I have known can't censor someone's personal or political opinion or what they do or say in their own personal time, impeaching them would be against their civil rights - even if it is politically incorrect - it would have to be of their own volition to change. As Voltaire put it - "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." (or perhaps it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall.)
If such a totalitarian system were ever to be conceived that won't permit anonymity, I suppose it would get complicated with different nationalities, especially EU, where handling and sharing someone's personal information requires far more restrictions, not to mention the oppressive regimes would have their own "requirements". I suppose someone would have to weigh what they gain vs what they lose. Sadly, they might lose Freedom of speech and Privacy, for the chance that someone would be nicer on the internet.
On Fri, May 10, 2013, Sylvia Ventura sylvia.ventura@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I don't quite follow that your ID was deleted for vandalism? I would like to offer my help as an admin. Please let me know your username, and I will see if it can be rectified.
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 harassmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment, both on and off Wikipedia]]
After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator Hersfoldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfoldin 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 Hersfoldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfoldresignation 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.
I agree that concealing someone's real identity won't really affect incidence of harassment. At the same time, if traceability is getting better, so are the means to counter it- there are tons of tools online for people that value it - OTR, VPN, TOR etc. and there business has only been booming.
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.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog [2] http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/two-women-arrested-for-facebook-post-on-m...
Regards Theo (^Pseudonym, lest anyone believe my last name is 10011 :) )