{{trigger warning : French joke included}}
Dear Pete, let me explain why this is problematic.
First I am sorry to say there is no hidden agenda or awful witchery plot to uncover
including WMF influence. I have myself severely criticised the WMF in the course of the
branding process (and was never scolded for that so I think we can express criticism).
Maybe not all the time, maybe not just in any format.
I made the initial comment, and no one pushed me into. If it has offended people, I am
sorry, maybe I should in effect have reached out to Dan privately first. Dan I am sorry of
the attention, your wording is being given, and I would like us to move on, as suggested
by Alphos to a more constructive debate.
Pete, because your are asking repeatedly for clarification and only because of that, what
I have learned from my #black lives matter friends, it that s not my obligation to educate
you on why this is problematic. In fact when you ask for clarifications, you are putting
pressure on people who find the use of disrespectful language a problem instead of asking
why the initial comment had to include flatulistic scenery (and this for French speakers
has nothing to do with Brice de Nice’s expression « ça farte » see for reference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhZ_kkVzx18
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhZ_kkVzx18>) which blurrs the actual meaning
behind the criticisml, especially for people whose language is not English in the first
place. Then one could argue that it is targeting people of an institution. Full stop.
I wish to move on to why I believe spaces should be moderated, which basically would mean
enforcing a code of conduct, that many members of our community have been asking for for
years.
« As I am a nice guy » I will give a few ressources explaining why I think lists, and
wikimedia spaces should be moderated. Basically it is because you can :
1- allow free roaming speech and leaving agressive behaviours unchecked creating a space
where only certain social groups are over represented but thus you can’t claim to be
designing the sum of all human knowledge
OR
2 - design free open source inclusive spaces that are allowing anyone to participate but
you then have to moderate content because, people have different « cultures" and may
not understand what offends others, there is a learning curve.
Here is a timeline of incidents
https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents#2018for
<https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents#2018for>
This time line of incidents is often cited by women as a reason for having OS code of
conducts (which includes moderation of mailing lists most of the time)
History tells us, that in the early internet days, the first experiments of virtual spaces
encountered less harassment and more women. This is told in the following book :
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35953464-broad-band
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35953464-broad-band>, where the story of Stacy
Horn and how she actually designed the Esat Coast Hanger (ECHO) see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Horn <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Horn>
is detailed. Why? Because Stacy Horn moderated each chan and reached out to every member
that left the community so that she would eventually know about abusive behaviours and
document it.
Designing a safe space does not mean you cannot address just any topic, it just means that
you do so paying attention to how you treat potential readers, and contributors to create
a discussion that is actually evolving around the subject, and not the format of it.
A 2018 incident about wether or not a joke should be removed
https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/ <https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/> questions wether
there is a need for a safe space or not in open source projects. I’m taking this example,
because it shows how power and privilege iin a community can be used to influence «
keeping a joke that is upsetting to some ».
So the question of « censorship » is central, but it usually has a pending side : who is
silenced, whose voice is not being heard? I like the way the Django FAQ adresses the
problem of « censorship » in a community
https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/faq/
<https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/faq/>
Quote from the above :
This is censorship! I have the right to say whatever I want
You do -- in your space. If you'd like to hang out in our spaces (as clarified above),
we have some simple guidelines to follow. If you want to, for example, form a group where
Django is discussed using language inappropriate for general channels then nobody's
stopping you. We respect your right to establish whatever codes of conduct you want in the
spaces that belong to you. Please honor this Code of Conduct in our spaces.
https://web.archive.org/web/20141109123859/http://speakup.io/coc.html
<https://web.archive.org/web/20141109123859/http://speakup.io/coc.html>
Quote from the above :
It's important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or
threatened is not a productive one
If people do not know how to issue gracefully formulated criticism, we should have
ressources to them to study, maybe even courses on non violent communication.
So I hope I have provided {{useful}} context and I will not answer anymore so that we can
move on to something else.
Kind regards,
Nattes
Le 11 sept. 2020 à 13:29, Peter Southwood
<peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> a écrit :
There was no clear statement of "this is the problematic text and this is why it is
considered unacceptable", which is a thing that I consider a reasonable expectation,
as it is possible to learn from it, understand it, pass constructive criticism or
agreement, and use as it a precedent for future expectations.
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Adam
Wight
Sent: 11 September 2020 11:56
To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of
offensive and unacceptable
expressions, and how they are determined?
There were been several explanations already. It's possible to use mild
words in a cruel way, for example a father telling their child "You've
always had beans for brains." Editors are aware of this simple truth
and any feigned outrage must be disingenuous.
It's interesting that I've voiced some extremely harsh criticism of the
WMF, even suggesting that the editors form a union and sue for control
of the Board, yet I've never once been moderated. Had my job threatened
perhaps, but never blocked.
The point here is that petty hostility only achieves the goal of
creating an unpleasant and unwelcoming environment. If you (speaking to
the people here who are critical of the UCoC) want to make real change,
please organize yourselves somewhere else, come up with a coherent
argument, and present it here. The constant attrition of "why can't I
say 'fart'?" is tiresome and dilutes any conversation of substance.
Kind regards,
U:Adamw
_______________________________________________
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>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
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>