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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:08 AM effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>