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