As long as people are going to continue to talk about me and imply that I'm actually *harassing* people, then I feel I have a right to defend myself.
No, clear warnings weren't given. I compared the action of a *non-profit board* tangentially to *flatulence* and I was immediately talked down to and lectured at in a patronizing fashion. Nothing was explained, it was just supposed to be self-evident that it *was* offensive and it *was* across a line without a single shred of an argument that covered rules or policy.
I brought up that the UCoC standard is a reasonable person standard, not a "most offended person" standard and this was never addressed. Instead, I was demeaned by being placed on a special moderation protocol. Asaf Bartov threatened me that if I continued to defend myself -- even as people continued to discuss me -- that *I'm* hijacking the thread. Jackie Koerner spoke at me in an incredibly condescending, arrogant manner, presuming it was their place to educate me so I could "learn" what I did.
I asked Asaf if Koerner was given a similar warning for a very long, smug, patronizing screed about me as on-topic. Bartov reiterated that nobody else was given any warning about off-topic communication. Only *I* am not allowed to talk about *my* apparent offense.
Now "other cultures" is considered an excuse for insults far more direct than I made with myself as the target. People like Allen and Southwood ask for specifics and are brushed off with "well, it just is." You want to talk about other cultures, but then don't respect our culture, where it's extremely offensive to accuse people without evidence, start with the assumption that the person whose opinion you don't like is in the wrong, and hold out people for mockery.
I intentionally didn't single-out who I think the worst players on the WMF board are. I intentionally, when tweeting this conversation and when exchanging DMs and emails with colleagues in tech, journalism, and related entities that make donations to Wikimedia, redact all the names and made it clear that my beef is with the WMF and that anyone who tries to harass any of these people are not on my side. I've even --surprisingly -- gotten a few emails from administrators at English Wikipedia who I don't even know, giving me support though they're concerned if they speak up, everything will blow up even more and they will be subject to reprisals from WMF.
I daresay I've shown the individuals referenced here with far more respect than has been shown me. I don't have any desire to "educate" people to the "correct" opinion as a few of you do. I'm just expressing my opinion on how the WMF board has conducted itself, I don't seek to lecture Koerner into seeing their error of their ways or have any desire to prevent Bartov from effectively responding to criticism as they presume to do for me.
If you enter into this conversation thinking things as harmless as comparisons of the WMF to a fart resulting in severe penalties are things a UCoC will successfully bring to the communities, you are dead wrong. Given the history of communications "at" English Wikipedia from the WMF and various Wikimedia-connected individuals causing months of turmoil, I'm fairly certain that the target of disdainful lecturing should be targeted at the mirror, not me.
Cheers,
Dan
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 8:04 AM Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:08 AM effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com
wrote:
I would love us to be more gentle, but at the same time it is also important to recognize diversity in character, expression and opinion.
Well, precisely? :)
"To recognize diversity in character, expression and opinion" is crucial. Recognizing privilege is just as important.
There is abundant evidence about strong and disrespectful language driving away those who actually would contribute diversity in a conversation. For one (usually privileged) participant that goes through moderation after ignoring warnings, how many (usually less or no privileged) disengage and leave silently to avoid or boycott disrespectful behavior? That is where the big loss in diversity lies.
One good reason to really care about high standards of respect and civility is precisely to increase the diversity of our movement. Most of our "open" discussion channels are not open at all. Full participation in these channels is in practice quite exclusive. Those who thrive are privileged persons who can handle an aggressive communication style or even enjoy it. Wikimedia-l is no exception, and the UCoC thread is a typical example.
More and more contributors are taking action to change this trend, and this is one of the best things happening right now in our movement.
-- Quim Gil (he/him) Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe