Hi Jonathan,
Great post! Thank you for introducing a fresh and compelling perspective
into the conversation, though I would suggest that this needs adjusting to
take into account that Wikimedians' circumstances are vastly different
depnding on where they live – a point I will return to below.
On-wiki, meanwhile, one of the arbitrators, Wugapodes, interprets[1] the
Universal Code of Conduct to mean that sharing another Wikimedian's
personal information and all the other bulletpoint examples of harassment
in the Universal Code of Conduct[2] are *only* unacceptable if the
behaviour fulfils certain criteria laid out in the section's preamble.
This is actually an interesting point. I will explain what he means.
Let's remind ourselves first how the UCoC's Harassment section begins
(emphases mine, in ALLCAPS so they show in the list archive):
----
3.1 – Harassment
This INCLUDES any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or
upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered
the most likely main outcome. Behaviour can be considered harassment if it
is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a
global, intercultural environment. Harassment often takes the form of
emotional abuse, especially towards people who are in a vulnerable
position, and may include contacting workplaces or friends and family
members in an effort to intimidate or embarrass. In some cases, behaviour
that would not rise to the level of harassment in a single case can become
harassment through repetition. Harassment INCLUDES but is not limited to:
[...]
*Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors' private
information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.
----
Wugapodes argues that sharing someone's name and workplace without their
consent should *only* be unacceptable if it is judged by ArbCom to have
been done *primarily* to "intimidate, outrage or upset a person" and is
"beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global,
intercultural environment". Not performing this extra test, Wugapodes says,
would lead to "absurd results":
*'In the line you want us to take absurdly literally, we have the line
["]sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the
projects.["] Well, under your interpretation, looks like half my friends
and family are harassing me. Let me call over my partner, "Yes, hi honey,
remember when you told your friends that I'm a Wikipedia arbitrator? Well,
unfortunately, I did not give you explicit permission to do so and you have
therefore harassed me. I have reported you to the Foundation.'*
I agree with him inasmuch as the literal meaning of the passage he quotes
is patently absurd. (I have said exactly the same before.)
But does the community agree that it is okay for a Wikimedian to share a
fellow Wikimedian's legal name, workplace and so on, as long as it is not
done "primarily" to intimidate etc. and is in line with "what a reasonable
person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural
environment"?
Historically, outing rules on Wikipedia have been much stricter.
One of the reasons for this is that even if there is no *intent* to
intimidate or harm, outing can have *extremely* severe consequences for
Wikimedians, depending on (1) what they write about and (2) where they live
and work – recall the two Wikimedians currently serving long jail sentences
in Saudi Arabia[3].
Moreover, Wugapodes' interpretation, while internally consistent, does not
follow from the UCoC text as it stands. The preamble says what harassment "
INCLUDES" and the bulletpoints also begin with "Harassment INCLUDES ..."
If I have two sentences, "Fruit includes things that taste sweet" and
"Fruit includes apples", it does not logically follow that apples are only
fruit if they taste sweet. Am I the only person who sees a logical
non-sequitur here?
Andreas
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Reque…
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Speci…
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 4:34 PM <jehochman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Andreas,
By way of disclosure I am a researcher at the Yale Applied Cryptography
Laboratory and I have been studying the tension between the right to
privacy and the need for legal accountability when content is posted
online.
My working theory is that we need to avoid creating lawless zones on the
internet. When content is posted online, the poster has to be accountable
in some way to avoid social harms like the harassment of individuals or
groups.
One way we create accountability on Wikipedia and within Wikimedia
projects is to say that personal information may not be weaponized to
intimidate another editor. I strongly support our policy against doxing.
However, intent matters.
If I find an account that appears to be connected to a business, and it is
spamming Wikipedia with links to that business, it is not unreasonable for
me to point out the apparent connection and suggest that the account should
be held accountable for violating terms of service against spam. On the
other hand, if I name an editor to try to silence them, that is clearly
wrongdoing by me.
If a Wikipedian goes to another platform, like Wikipediaocracy, or a
similar site that has minimal editorial standards, and posts doxing content
or defamatory content using a pseudonym, our only way to create
accountability is to sanction the account of the Wikipedian. There's a void
of legal accountability when dealing with a pseudonymous account and a site
like Wikipediaocracy that enjoys Section 230 immunity (i.e. only the
poster is responsible for its content, not the platform).
In contrast, if a researcher writes under their real life name in a
publication that exercises editorial control, a person targeted by that
content has strong recourse. A purported victim can sue the author for
defamation, and they can also sue the publication who has exercised
editorial control. It seems unreasonable for Wikipedia to sanction the
author when there is already legal accountability, especially if the author
may only be a casual Wikipedian (not sure if that's true in the case you
mentioned).
Because these two situations are different, Wikimedia should take a
nuanced approach that holds Wikimedians responsible for doxing and
harassment, but avoids chilling free speech, especially among academics.
This might require rewriting the Code of Conduct or issuing guidance on
when to apply the Code to off-site activities.
Best regards,
Jonathan Hochman
(Jehochman)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org