One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well
as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them
experience how other,
non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and
judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here.
It is furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal
irritation about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of
this topic, against a context in which harassment and violence is not the
exception, but everyday reality.
>
>
Transparency is the only way forward, a process where a known, trusted, and
respected community member is sanction behind closed doors by a group of
faceless, nameless individuals is never going to produce a trusted
outcome. One immediate re action would be to publish for every event, a
list of the people who are responsible for the decisions. When they make
a decision they must be able to immediately defend that decision and the
actions taken, all parties must be clear on the reasons otherwise we do end
with what took place. Its this lack of transparency, understanding, and
silence that has brought us to this point.
In the world most of us live in, offensive or invasive behavior has no
tangible consequences for those who commit it, but
severe effects on those
who experience it
Even in this community it takes place, its seams to me we spend a lot of
time learning but very little time understanding because we keep finding
transparency is a common issue when things go astray.
On 30 July 2018 at 06:15, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have no personal knowledge of the recent events at Wikimania, and I will
speak about only the general principles involved.
True. But for privacy and other reasons, it is
impractical to make
friendly-space violations a matter of public debate,
Please provide evidence that backs up that point. I have repeatedly seen
similar assertions made by WMF staff with no data or analysis to support it.
so we cannot resolve this the wiki way. Instead,
we *have* to trust the
people entrusted with enforcing the policy that they are careful, sensible,
and competent.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't trust judges to put people in jail
simply because they happen to be judges. I trust judges to put people in
jail after the publication of convincing evidence and reasoning to support
their intended course of action.
The standard of evidence required to remove someone from office, or remove
them from an event, can be lower than the standard required to put someone
in jail, but I still want mostly transparent due process to happen so that:
1. people who allege that misconduct has taken place have significant
visibility into how their complaints are handled and thus, hopefully, can
have confidence that the accusations are investigated in a responsible
manner instead of being carelessly dismissed, and
2. people are not victimized with clearly false or poorly supported
accusations that the authorities recklessly use as a basis for issuing
sanctions instead of conducting a responsible investigation.
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
--
GN.
Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU:
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery:
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order
here
<https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
.