Hi all,
I decided to contribute to this thread, however not in order to elaborate on my personal opinion on this specific case. This would be inappropriate, as we do not have sufficient information about it and also out of respect for the people involved.
Instead, I want to comment, because I feel strongly about the consequences this discussion may have - not only on the perception of the friendly space policy and its effectiveness, but also on people who may need to refer to the policy in the future.
This past Wikimania was very much about the importance of representing all people in our movement and about finding ways for them to have a voice, to be heard – and to feel safe to contribute and participate.
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.
Policies and measures like codes of conduct etc. exist for a reason. Invisible to many, harassment does happen, it happens a lot, it happens also amongst communities with great, humanitarian goals. 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. According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1]. UN Women has confirmed that there is a big problem with underreporting when it comes to these cases.
Efforts like the friendly space policies aim to contribute to establish a societal climate where people feel safe and that makes all people aware, that inappropriate behavior has consequences.
Publicly judging and ridiculing efforts to find a process, suitable to make all people feel safe, heard, and, if necessary, taken seriously at events, can set back efforts of creating such a process. Measures like friendly space policies are not self-evident, they are an hard fought for achievement. Seeing, how fast those efforts are being called into question, is quite disheartening and worries me a lot.
I am very grateful to work for and with a movement that has agreed on trying to make all people feel welcome and respected. I hope that we will keep fostering this together.
best
Lilli
------------------------------
<#_ftnref1>[1] http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/fra_9dec2014.pdf
Thanks for writing this Lilli - I completely agree. Lots of opinions from people going "well this person didn't harass me" or "I don't know the specifics but maybe it's just cultural differences" or "omg the WMF has done something outrageous again" do not really help this kind of situation.
If our objective is to make sure everyone is welcome in the Wikimedia movement it's vital that something like the Friendly Space policy exists and is enforced.
Chris
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.
On 29 July 2018 at 18:27, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of opinions from people going "well this person didn't harass me" or "I don't know the specifics but maybe it's just cultural differences"
I'm one of the people who commented, early on, on that original thread; and I don't believe that describes my post.
I did note that there was prima face evidence that a community member who had a disability (my word for it; not theirs) appeared to have been discriminated against, at least in part, due to the effects of that disability. I would expect or "safe space" policy to ensure that this did not happen.
I have not seen a single response, to date, that has addressed this point; either specifically or in general.
In the world we have a big problem of violence against women, but also towards to the LGBT+ community and I think these problems are a serious problem we all can recognise. To create clarity we have a Friendly Space Policy what clearly defines what is unacceptable, something that we all can recognise.
But what should happen when somebody feels uncomfortable, while there is no violation of the Friendly Space Policy?
And in addition, if that somebody does not indicate to feel uncomfortable, so the other person has no way to know someone is uncomfortable. And thus can't fix/help to remove the uncomfortable part of the situation.
If then actions are taken towards the person who apparently created an uncomfortable feeling without knowing that, who also got no indication as such to fix, then this raises to me a lot of questions. What then happens is that the Trust and Safety team creates for that person an unsafe environment. And not just for this person, but to anyone who has interaction with another person.
And the more interactions you have with people, the higher is the risk that there is someone feeling uncomfortable. Especially those people, maybe you have seen them, that walk around to help others, answer questions, etc, (there are various of them at Wikimania), especially those people are at high risk.
If *then* the Trust and Safety team is taking action, something goes wrong, then an event is no longer safe.
What we can do as a community is debate *principles*, i.e. the policy
itself.
I think it is not the policy that is the actual subject for debate, but it is about how the policy is used, or otherwise the way how we deal as movement with this kind of situations. What are the general principles according how the trust and Safety team acts. Those can be open and should not be a black box.
A second thing (or maybe the same) that is something we can talk about is what do we do as movement when somebody feels uncomfortable (as described)? How can we help this person with this feeling to be comfortable again?
Romaine
2018-07-29 20:57 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk:
On 29 July 2018 at 18:27, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of opinions from people going "well this person didn't harass me" or "I don't know the specifics but maybe it's just cultural differences"
I'm one of the people who commented, early on, on that original thread; and I don't believe that describes my post.
I did note that there was prima face evidence that a community member who had a disability (my word for it; not theirs) appeared to have been discriminated against, at least in part, due to the effects of that disability. I would expect or "safe space" policy to ensure that this did not happen.
I have not seen a single response, to date, that has addressed this point; either specifically or in general.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Hello all,
In response to this I wrote something in defence of friendly space policies, as I think we are looking at them the wrong way. It's far from complete but just a few ideas.
TL:DR: Safe space policies are important, but being both less defensive, and less judgemental about infractions, is good , and the only way we learn.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Battleofalma/What_did_I_do_wrong
Thanks
S
On 15 August 2018 at 04:39, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In the world we have a big problem of violence against women, but also towards to the LGBT+ community and I think these problems are a serious problem we all can recognise. To create clarity we have a Friendly Space Policy what clearly defines what is unacceptable, something that we all can recognise.
But what should happen when somebody feels uncomfortable, while there is no violation of the Friendly Space Policy?
And in addition, if that somebody does not indicate to feel uncomfortable, so the other person has no way to know someone is uncomfortable. And thus can't fix/help to remove the uncomfortable part of the situation.
If then actions are taken towards the person who apparently created an uncomfortable feeling without knowing that, who also got no indication as such to fix, then this raises to me a lot of questions. What then happens is that the Trust and Safety team creates for that person an unsafe environment. And not just for this person, but to anyone who has interaction with another person.
And the more interactions you have with people, the higher is the risk that there is someone feeling uncomfortable. Especially those people, maybe you have seen them, that walk around to help others, answer questions, etc, (there are various of them at Wikimania), especially those people are at high risk.
If *then* the Trust and Safety team is taking action, something goes wrong, then an event is no longer safe.
What we can do as a community is debate *principles*, i.e. the policy
itself.
I think it is not the policy that is the actual subject for debate, but it is about how the policy is used, or otherwise the way how we deal as movement with this kind of situations. What are the general principles according how the trust and Safety team acts. Those can be open and should not be a black box.
A second thing (or maybe the same) that is something we can talk about is what do we do as movement when somebody feels uncomfortable (as described)? How can we help this person with this feeling to be comfortable again?
Romaine
2018-07-29 20:57 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk:
On 29 July 2018 at 18:27, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of opinions from people going "well this person didn't harass me" or "I don't know the specifics but maybe it's just cultural differences"
I'm one of the people who commented, early on, on that original thread; and I don't believe that describes my post.
I did note that there was prima face evidence that a community member who had a disability (my word for it; not theirs) appeared to have been discriminated against, at least in part, due to the effects of that disability. I would expect or "safe space" policy to ensure that this did not happen.
I have not seen a single response, to date, that has addressed this point; either specifically or in general.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Hello. Am 29.07.2018 um 19:27 schrieb Chris Keating:
to make sure everyone is welcome
You mean everyone that is not a little deaf, speaks not a little too loud and does not dare to deliver stuff to other sessions?
The hole case is a primary example why such things as a friendly-space-policy are complete bullshit. It is nearly never used with good intensions, it is nearly never used against people who really are misbehaving, but against normal people.
If there is really a problem, most countries have laws for/against it. That’s enough. If there is no law against a problem, there is no real problem. There is no law against too-loud-speaking because it is not needed; if somebody speaks too loud, you can just tell him/her. There are laws against unwelcome sexual contacts because they are a problem; use the laws if needed – no policy is needed here.
The reason why some people prefer policies is the matter of believing. If I say “XYZ touched me!” with a policy all I need is that somebody important believes me. With a law I need proofs. With a policy there is no need for proofs, there is no in dubio pro reo – there is just the question whom the important persons believes more. In German that is called Willkür (≈arbitrariness/capriciousness/despotism) and for good reasons we got rid of it.
Sincerely, DaB.
P.S: And before somebody assumes: I was never the victim of a friendly-space-policy.
I disagree that there is no use for a policy at all. Sure, there are laws, but I would prefer not to have to use them - that we can avoid misbehavior in the first place. Having a good and consistent policy helps Wikipedians navigate. Don't (just) define what is forbidden, but (also) define what is 'good behavior'. For some people this is obvious, but there are also community members that find comfort in knowing what is a safe guideline to follow. There are also community members that will find comfort in knowing that they can expect certain behavior from their colleagues, no matter the country the event happens to be organized in.
I do agree however, that arbitrariness is not a good outcome. If there is even the impression that there is arbitrariness, the value of the policy is tainted. This is why I'm asking to review the policy - not because I disagree with the core principles, but because I don't like how it plays out - at the very least in the perception. But in this, I'm starting to repeat myself.
Best, Lodewijk
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:03 PM DaB. wp@dabpunkt.eu wrote:
Hello. Am 29.07.2018 um 19:27 schrieb Chris Keating:
to make sure everyone is welcome
You mean everyone that is not a little deaf, speaks not a little too loud and does not dare to deliver stuff to other sessions?
The hole case is a primary example why such things as a friendly-space-policy are complete bullshit. It is nearly never used with good intensions, it is nearly never used against people who really are misbehaving, but against normal people.
If there is really a problem, most countries have laws for/against it. That’s enough. If there is no law against a problem, there is no real problem. There is no law against too-loud-speaking because it is not needed; if somebody speaks too loud, you can just tell him/her. There are laws against unwelcome sexual contacts because they are a problem; use the laws if needed – no policy is needed here.
The reason why some people prefer policies is the matter of believing. If I say “XYZ touched me!” with a policy all I need is that somebody important believes me. With a law I need proofs. With a policy there is no need for proofs, there is no in dubio pro reo – there is just the question whom the important persons believes more. In German that is called Willkür (≈arbitrariness/capriciousness/despotism) and for good reasons we got rid of it.
Sincerely, DaB.
P.S: And before somebody assumes: I was never the victim of a friendly-space-policy.
-- Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Hi all,
someone asked me not to comment on this issue anymore, but as I think/hope that we are now on the meta level, let me remind everyone that a policy is just a particular aggregate state of norms. Nobody here seems to doubt that we need norms, especially at and around events. And norms often require active application. So somebody should take the leadership task of taking this debate further, but not without disecting it into the three things it is about:
a) pros and cons of having norms congealed in the form of a policy b) the ways of application / enforcement of those norms c) how to maintain consensus on the standards for infringement
While the last of those three parts might seem to be the most difficult, I suspect that b) is actually the most complex one to solve.
Best John
Am So., 29. Juli 2018 um 23:14 Uhr schrieb Lodewijk < lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>:
I disagree that there is no use for a policy at all. Sure, there are laws, but I would prefer not to have to use them - that we can avoid misbehavior in the first place. Having a good and consistent policy helps Wikipedians navigate. Don't (just) define what is forbidden, but (also) define what is 'good behavior'. For some people this is obvious, but there are also community members that find comfort in knowing what is a safe guideline to follow. There are also community members that will find comfort in knowing that they can expect certain behavior from their colleagues, no matter the country the event happens to be organized in.
I do agree however, that arbitrariness is not a good outcome. If there is even the impression that there is arbitrariness, the value of the policy is tainted. This is why I'm asking to review the policy - not because I disagree with the core principles, but because I don't like how it plays out - at the very least in the perception. But in this, I'm starting to repeat myself.
Best, Lodewijk
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:03 PM DaB. wp@dabpunkt.eu wrote:
Hello. Am 29.07.2018 um 19:27 schrieb Chris Keating:
to make sure everyone is welcome
You mean everyone that is not a little deaf, speaks not a little too loud and does not dare to deliver stuff to other sessions?
The hole case is a primary example why such things as a friendly-space-policy are complete bullshit. It is nearly never used with good intensions, it is nearly never used against people who really are misbehaving, but against normal people.
If there is really a problem, most countries have laws for/against it. That’s enough. If there is no law against a problem, there is no real problem. There is no law against too-loud-speaking because it is not needed; if somebody speaks too loud, you can just tell him/her. There are laws against unwelcome sexual contacts because they are a problem; use the laws if needed – no policy is needed here.
The reason why some people prefer policies is the matter of believing. If I say “XYZ touched me!” with a policy all I need is that somebody important believes me. With a law I need proofs. With a policy there is no need for proofs, there is no in dubio pro reo – there is just the question whom the important persons believes more. In German that is called Willkür (≈arbitrariness/capriciousness/despotism) and for good reasons we got rid of it.
Sincerely, DaB.
P.S: And before somebody assumes: I was never the victim of a friendly-space-policy.
-- Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Hello John. Am 29.07.2018 um 23:40 schrieb John Hendrik Weitzmann:
Nobody here seems to doubt that we need norms, especially at and around events.
I was at 2 Wikimanias, 5 WikiCons, several workshops and meetings, and nearly 2 dozen of WMDE-chapter-meeting – and only the very least of them had a written down policy: And we managed to survive too. Even better, because we had no unneeded arguments about a policy.
When I go to a meeting of Wikipedians I want to talk with people. I don’t want to worry about if my current behavior is in line with the current policy. I will respect the other people around me, I will try to not make them uncomfortable, and if there is a problem (for example: being too loud) I expect that somebody will talk to me, and I’m sure that there will be a solution. I don’t need a list of norms that somebody defined who may had a different cultural background – or even worse: the intersecting set of what is ok in all cultures (that may/will be the empty set).
Good night. DaB.
Hi dab, I'm glad you didn't experience any problems. May i ask how you conclude that we "survived"? What does it mean? No incidents? No murders? No near-incidents? I'm just trying to understand how you evaluate the success of a (no) policy. Lodewijk
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 02:24 DaB. wp@dabpunkt.eu wrote:
Hello John. Am 29.07.2018 um 23:40 schrieb John Hendrik Weitzmann:
Nobody here seems to doubt that we need norms, especially at and around events.
I was at 2 Wikimanias, 5 WikiCons, several workshops and meetings, and nearly 2 dozen of WMDE-chapter-meeting – and only the very least of them had a written down policy: And we managed to survive too. Even better, because we had no unneeded arguments about a policy.
When I go to a meeting of Wikipedians I want to talk with people. I don’t want to worry about if my current behavior is in line with the current policy. I will respect the other people around me, I will try to not make them uncomfortable, and if there is a problem (for example: being too loud) I expect that somebody will talk to me, and I’m sure that there will be a solution. I don’t need a list of norms that somebody defined who may had a different cultural background – or even worse: the intersecting set of what is ok in all cultures (that may/will be the empty set).
Good night. DaB.
-- Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Lilli Iliev, 29/07/2018 20:04:
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.
I'll note that this is valid both ways. So, to be consistent, you shouldn't jump at the conclusion that the outcome of the case was correct, just as you are asking not to jump to the conclusion it was wrong.
Federico
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Lilli Iliev, 29/07/2018 20:04:
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.
I'll note that this is valid both ways. So, to be consistent, you shouldn't jump at the conclusion that the outcome of the case was correct, just as you are asking not to jump to the conclusion it was wrong.
True. But for privacy and other reasons, it is impractical to make friendly-space violations a matter of public debate, 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.
It is still possible, of course, that they would make an occasional mistake. But we *still* can't turn a given action (or inaction) into a matter of public debate. We still have to trust the team.
What we can do as a community is debate *principles*, i.e. the policy itself. If a significant opinion forms in favor of adding, changing, or removing some elements from the policy, that could be input for the team(s) enforcing the policy.
A.
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.
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@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:
- 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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 7:04 PM Lilli Iliev lilli.iliev@wikimedia.de wrote:
According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1].
Where did you get that figure from? When I Control+F the number "75" nowhere in that document you linked appears that number, and there is no mention to "qualified professions or top management jobs" either.
It is also worth noting that their definition of harassment (page 11) includes "unwelcome touching" (I suppose touching a shoulder would qualify as harassment under this definition).
Regards, Micru
There is a gulf between behavior that might make someone uncomfortable, which may be the result of cultural differences, and harassment or violence. We should take care to ensure people who need some education on the former don't feel like they have been found guilty of the latter.
And such policies and programs have to be open to review and criticism. Being necessary and hardwon does not make them infallible and must not insulate them from any scrutiny.
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 1:04 PM Lilli Iliev lilli.iliev@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hi all,
I decided to contribute to this thread, however not in order to elaborate on my personal opinion on this specific case. This would be inappropriate, as we do not have sufficient information about it and also out of respect for the people involved.
Instead, I want to comment, because I feel strongly about the consequences this discussion may have - not only on the perception of the friendly space policy and its effectiveness, but also on people who may need to refer to the policy in the future.
This past Wikimania was very much about the importance of representing all people in our movement and about finding ways for them to have a voice, to be heard – and to feel safe to contribute and participate.
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.
Policies and measures like codes of conduct etc. exist for a reason. Invisible to many, harassment does happen, it happens a lot, it happens also amongst communities with great, humanitarian goals. 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. According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1]. UN Women has confirmed that there is a big problem with underreporting when it comes to these cases.
Efforts like the friendly space policies aim to contribute to establish a societal climate where people feel safe and that makes all people aware, that inappropriate behavior has consequences.
Publicly judging and ridiculing efforts to find a process, suitable to make all people feel safe, heard, and, if necessary, taken seriously at events, can set back efforts of creating such a process. Measures like friendly space policies are not self-evident, they are an hard fought for achievement. Seeing, how fast those efforts are being called into question, is quite disheartening and worries me a lot.
I am very grateful to work for and with a movement that has agreed on trying to make all people feel welcome and respected. I hope that we will keep fostering this together.
best
Lilli
<#m_2997935674535597173__ftnref1>[1] http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/fra_9dec2014.pdf
-- Lilli Iliev
Projektmanagerin Politik project manager public policy
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207 _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Hi all, I comment here because this reply is important and I agree with it but I would also stress that 75% of the women being harassed probably are in position where someone takes an advantage of his position to create around these women a forced silence and the possibility of blackmail. But it’s not the case that started this thread.
To use correctly the statistics, the numbers must be understood correctly because the Fundamental Rights Agency is reporting about “women in qualified professions or top management” and it means in an uncomfortable position.
In all this discussion what strikes me is the exaggerated reaction of both parties.
The use of the safe space policy is good and is welcome but this policy has a value where it’s applied in a correct way and there is not an exaggerated use.
And yes, “exaggeration” is what I would stress now in the wikiverse.
I already said that probably it would have been sufficient to ask “kindly” to don’t be touched and to use an escalation or to use the safe space policy when this behavior would have been recurrent and constant after this first warning.
I suggest to don’t exaggerate because if we would solve a discrimination introducing discrimination, or we would look at this case as an example of inappropriate behavior on women probably we have to look to the history of the wolf and the lamb of Esopo.
The principle of the safe space policy is good and it has been created mainly to protect the freedom of opinion, but I suggest to take care to don’t introduce the difference of gender or of race or of religion etc. Because every time we gives an advantage or a disadvantage to someone using these categories, there is always a part which is discriminated.
Kind regards
Guys, can you please take any discussion among you white males to Wikimedia-l if you still feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You can't force a public debate, especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already stated the obvious.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, 08:39 Ilario Valdelli, ilario.valdelli@wikimedia.ch wrote:
Hi all,
I comment here because this reply is important and I agree with it but I would also stress that 75% of the women being harassed probably are in position where someone takes an advantage of his position to create around these women a forced silence and the possibility of blackmail. But it’s not the case that started this thread.
To use correctly the statistics, the numbers must be understood correctly because the Fundamental Rights Agency is reporting about “women in qualified professions or top management” and it means in an uncomfortable position.
In all this discussion what strikes me is the exaggerated reaction of both parties.
The use of the safe space policy is good and is welcome but this policy has a value where it’s applied in a correct way and there is not an exaggerated use.
And yes, “exaggeration” is what I would stress now in the wikiverse.
I already said that probably it would have been sufficient to ask “kindly” to don’t be touched and to use an escalation or to use the safe space policy when this behavior would have been recurrent and constant after this first warning.
I suggest to don’t exaggerate because if we would solve a discrimination introducing discrimination, or we would look at this case as an example of inappropriate behavior on women probably we have to look to the history of the wolf and the lamb of Esopo.
The principle of the safe space policy is good and it has been created mainly to protect the freedom of opinion, but I suggest to take care to don’t introduce the difference of gender or of race or of religion etc. Because every time we gives an advantage or a disadvantage to someone using these categories, there is always a part which is discriminated.
Kind regards
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario Skype: valdelli Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
*From: *Lilli Iliev lilli.iliev@wikimedia.de *Sent: *29 July 2018 19:05 *To: *wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject: *[Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)
Hi all,
I decided to contribute to this thread, however not in order to elaborate on my personal opinion on this specific case. This would be inappropriate, as we do not have sufficient information about it and also out of respect for the people involved.
Instead, I want to comment, because I feel strongly about the consequences this discussion may have - not only on the perception of the friendly space policy and its effectiveness, but also on people who may need to refer to the policy in the future.
This past Wikimania was very much about the importance of representing all people in our movement and about finding ways for them to have a voice, to be heard – and to feel safe to contribute and participate.
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.
Policies and measures like codes of conduct etc. exist for a reason. Invisible to many, harassment does happen, it happens a lot, it happens also amongst communities with great, humanitarian goals. 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. According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1]. UN Women has confirmed that there is a big problem with underreporting when it comes to these cases.
Efforts like the friendly space policies aim to contribute to establish a societal climate where people feel safe and that makes all people aware, that inappropriate behavior has consequences.
Publicly judging and ridiculing efforts to find a process, suitable to make all people feel safe, heard, and, if necessary, taken seriously at events, can set back efforts of creating such a process. Measures like friendly space policies are not self-evident, they are an hard fought for achievement. Seeing, how fast those efforts are being called into question, is quite disheartening and worries me a lot.
I am very grateful to work for and with a movement that has agreed on trying to make all people feel welcome and respected. I hope that we will keep fostering this together.
best
Lilli
[1] http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/fra_9dec2014.pdf
--
Lilli Iliev
Projektmanagerin Politik
project manager public policy
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Mail priva di virus. www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient <#m_5358394905228150261_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Probably I am saying the same and this means to don’t use categories in this discussion.
Is not it clear?
Kind regards
Philip, I am going to try to say this politely. 1. How, exactly, are white males unqualified to discuss the Friendly Space Policy because of their/our identity as white males? And are you certain that everyone who has so far participated in this discussion is a white male? 2. A public discussion is already happening. Whether the discussion should happen in a different venue is certainly OK to ask, but I see no reason to attrempt to silence the discussion so long as it generally remains on a topic of public importance.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
From: Philip Kopetzky Sent: 30 July 2018 09:01 To: Wikimania general list (open subscription) Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news) Guys, can you please take any discussion among you white males to Wikimedia-l if you still feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You can't force a public debate, especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already stated the obvious.
White female speaking: this is an important discussion for EVERYONE. I will refrain from replying often as I was upset by the incident in CT, and I have personal experience of an incident at Wikimania 2016, and thus I find it hard to not get carried away. So I will reiterate that TRANSPARENCY is what we need.
(And in reply to WMF input to this thread: just because the Trust & Safety team bears the name does not mean that they unconditionally deserve our trust, nor that our safety is safeguarded. Names and titles abound in society. If content adhered to name there would be no need for dispute and conflict)
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, 10:53 Pine W, wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Philip,
I am going to try to say this politely.
- How, exactly, are white males unqualified to discuss the Friendly Space
Policy because of their/our identity as white males? And are you certain that everyone who has so far participated in this discussion is a white male?
- A public discussion is already happening. Whether the discussion should
happen in a different venue is certainly OK to ask, but I see no reason to attrempt to silence the discussion so long as it generally remains on a topic of public importance.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
*From: *Philip Kopetzky philip.kopetzky@gmail.com *Sent: *30 July 2018 09:01 *To: *Wikimania general list (open subscription) wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject: *Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)
Guys, can you please take any discussion among you white males to Wikimedia-l if you still feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You can't force a public debate, especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already stated the obvious.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Let's move beyond who is and isn't qualified to comment on the policy. The spirit of the Friendly Space Policy is that it should create a friendly space for every participant, regardless of background.
Participants of this thread generally agree on what it means to feel safe. There is relatively little debate about the expectations as written down in the Friendly Space Policy.
What needs fixing is the consequences of violating the policy. The current version of the policy (which has remained virtually unchanged since 2012) has essentially one sentence:
If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the conference organizers may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender or expulsion from the conference.
( https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy )
The problem here is that if WMF or the organisers of an event needs to enforce FSP and keeps secret about the entire incident, speculation and one-sided perspectives can run amok in the community debate that ensues.
Lilli and Asaf have a good point: the specifics about a case of FSP enforcement ought not to be the subject of public debate because that creates additional stress on the participants. But for the enforcers to keep utter silence has served the opposite purpose: the lack of an official statement of enforcement has caused speculation to run wild.
It would be in the interest of both transparency and justice that the T&S or the organisers make a short announcement whenever FSP is invoked. It could be as anonymous as "We have had an incident where an attendee felt uncomfortable in a discussion. Attendees are reminded to... [insert appropriate behaviour]"
What is missing from the FSP process is this pre-emptive, limited release of information from an act of enforcement. It can come with a reminder that further discussion of the incident is discouraged to protect the privacy of those involved.
Deryck
On 30 July 2018 at 09:56, Mina Theofilatou saintfevrier@gmail.com wrote:
White female speaking: this is an important discussion for EVERYONE. I will refrain from replying often as I was upset by the incident in CT, and I have personal experience of an incident at Wikimania 2016, and thus I find it hard to not get carried away. So I will reiterate that TRANSPARENCY is what we need.
(And in reply to WMF input to this thread: just because the Trust & Safety team bears the name does not mean that they unconditionally deserve our trust, nor that our safety is safeguarded. Names and titles abound in society. If content adhered to name there would be no need for dispute and conflict)
Il giorno lun 30 lug 2018 alle ore 12:57 Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com ha scritto:
The problem here is that if WMF or the organisers of an event needs to enforce FSP and keeps secret about the entire incident, speculation and one-sided perspectives can run amok in the community debate that ensues.
Lilli and Asaf have a good point: the specifics about a case of FSP enforcement ought not to be the subject of public debate because that creates additional stress on the participants. But for the enforcers to keep utter silence has served the opposite purpose: the lack of an official statement of enforcement has caused speculation to run wild.
It would be in the interest of both transparency and justice that the T&S or the organisers make a short announcement whenever FSP is invoked. It could be as anonymous as "We have had an incident where an attendee felt uncomfortable in a discussion. Attendees are reminded to... [insert appropriate behaviour]"
What is missing from the FSP process is this pre-emptive, limited release of information from an act of enforcement. It can come with a reminder that further discussion of the incident is discouraged to protect the privacy of those involved.
+2. Just to let you know, Wikimedia Italia has recently approved a Code of Conduct,[1] roughly based on WMF's Friendly Space Policy, with the difference that we explicitly stated that the person that gets sanctioned in light of the Code of Conduct has the right to know why the sanction has been taken.
I think *this* would be the one and only amendment that we should do to the FSP. It doesn't have to be publicly announced by Katherine or Jimbo to the whole assembly, but at least it'd be nice for the person affected to know.
There's also another thing we should do, but this cannot be an amendment to the FSP. I quote directly DaB. on this:
Il giorno lun 30 lug 2018 alle ore 02:24 DaB. wp@dabpunkt.eu ha scritto:
I will respect the other people around me, I will try to not make them uncomfortable, and if there is a problem (for example: being too loud) I expect that somebody will talk to me, and I’m sure that there will be a solution.
I know that somebody would feel... weird in asking certain things, or to respect certain things. I know what it's like, because I live in constant fear of "doing the wrong thing", since I too have some minor problems in approaching new people, and sometimes overthink too much the weight of my words or actions.
Asking politely not to do certain things to me is perfect, but in a way we should remember Wikimania or any other wiki event is NOT an hostile environment - quite the opposite. In my experience, I found wiki events the perfect environment to step up a bit my "social skills", because I know this is *my* people I'm addressing, let's not forget that.
L.
[1] https://wiki.wikimedia.it/wiki/Codice_di_condotta (Italian only)
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:56 PM Mina Theofilatou saintfevrier@gmail.com wrote:
White female speaking: this is an important discussion for EVERYONE. I will refrain from replying often as I was upset by the incident in CT, and I have personal experience of an incident at Wikimania 2016, and thus I find it hard to not get carried away. So I will reiterate that TRANSPARENCY is what we need.
(And in reply to WMF input to this thread: just because the Trust & Safety team bears the name does not mean that they unconditionally deserve our trust, nor that our safety is safeguarded. Names and titles abound in society. If content adhered to name there would be no need for dispute and conflict)
I wholeheartedly agree with you - transparency is needed to ensure accountability. One's title does not automatically bestow legitimacy to your actions and decisions specially when they affect the lives and reputations of others.
Also, one's racial or sexual identity should not be used to discount their opinions. That's not the Wikimedia way.
Probably the best thing that can happen to this thread now is that it dies off, but I did just want to respond to this point by Pine, because it's really important:
- How, exactly, are white males unqualified to discuss the Friendly Space Policy because of their/our identity as white males?
Men (add well-educated, straight, able-bodied, wealthy if you wish) from whatever ethnic group is most prominent in the country they live in have a different experience of life to everyone else.
Harassment, bullying and various other forms of discrimination are much more frequent , even normal, for women, people from ethnic minorities, LGBT people, and others who don't match that description.
So a conversation mainly conducted by white men about something like a Friendly Space Policy is mainly being conducted by people who do not experience the issue that the Friendly Space Policy is designed to address. Or if they do experience it, it's an unusual thing that's easy to laugh off.
Therefore this kind of conversation is much more likely to conclude that there isn't a real problem, or the policy isn't working, or other things are more important (e.g. being REALLY TRANSPARENT ABOUT EVERYTHING), or whatever has happened in a particular case isn't an issue. Which, predictably enough, is *exactly* what has happened in this conversation.
Regards,
Chris
Il giorno lun 30 lug 2018 alle ore 09:00 Philip Kopetzky philip.kopetzky@gmail.com ha scritto:
Guys, can you please take any discussion among you white males to Wikimedia-l if you still feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You can't force a public debate, especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already stated the obvious.
Plonk.
wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
