Hoi,
To help you remember, we had such situations in the past, they were
resolved. It was ultimately the language committee who stopped Wikipedias.
Background it is this same language committee who is instrumental in
starting new projects.
On a different topic. Diversity and bias is very much topical at this time.
At the same time we, the Wikimedia Foundation (org and movement) are in a
position to diminish the bias against all the other languages. A first
iteration of Special:MediaSearch [1] is available on Commons. It allows you
to find a cat in Amharic or Chinese, Korean, Kannada, Kiswahili and Dutch.
It is the first iteration of the official multi lingual search support of
the WMF. It can be localised. With a bit of effort it becomes available on
all of our projects.
What it takes to make Commons usable;
* access of everyone to this search functionality
* localisation at
translatewiki.net
* labels in commons
* pictures that are to are know depict
The most important thing that will make this happen; is recognition that
this requires commitment, it is considered that it is the primary objective
it is (motto: "All of @WikiCommons is available to every single person on
the planet"). It is important to understand that with finite resources,
your hobby horse may take a backseat. You should embrace it because "other
languages" matter.
PS oh yes, and it works best in English anyway.
Thanks,
GerardM
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap&q=pa…
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap&q=pa…
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 21:43, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
This topic has been in the back of my mind for awhile. Occasionally it
comes up in conversations, and it has been discussed as part of the
2030 strategy process (see
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20).
I have a few early thoughts that I'd like to share.
I think that a global code of conduct, and a way to enforce it, could
be good in some limited but important circumstances:
(1) Where the governance of a Wikimedia project or another WMF conduct
review organization has allegedly been compromised so extensively that
removal of all of its administrators, functionaries, and/or other
authorities should be considered for the purpose of providing a
relatively "clean start" for reforming the affected domain's
governance, or a domain is allegedly becoming so anarchic that
peacekeeping from outsiders is necessary to restore order.
In none of these cases am I suggesting that outsiders should attempt
to get involved in content disputes or allegations of misconduct by a
small proportion of a site's administrators or functionaries.
By default, a global code of conduct committee should assume good
faith regarding local consensus and/or the actions of a local
arbitration committee, if they exist, and a global code of conduct
committee should by default assume that any local consensus decisions
and the decisions of a local arbitration committee are legitimate.
These default positions may be changed if there is significant
evidence suggesting that there should be a review of the situation by
outsiders.
(2) Where a steward, global sysop, Meta administrator, or other person
in a similarly "meta" online position has allegedly misused their
position, and other options have been exhausted or would involve
publicly revealing evidence for which there is a very strong reason
for privacy.
(3) Where the current Ombudsman Commission (see
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission) has found fault
with actions that are under its authority to review and recommends
that individuals be sanctioned.
(4) In the circumstances where, presently, WMF asserts a global ban.
I would oppose the use of a global code of conduct or a global code of
conduct committee for:
(1) disputes which focus on one or a relatively small number of
individuals. A global code of conduct committee could easily be
overwhelmed by the number of cases, and I think that local
administrators and functionaries who have good knowledge of a
project's policies, guidelines, and language(s) are best placed to
address these disputes.
(2) content disputes.
(3) functioning as a thin layer of cover for WMF-driven actions or
acting as an extension of WMF.
(4) silencing debates or unwelcome opinions for the purpose of making
people feel safe. The Internet is not a safe place, and no amount of
heavy policing will effectively guarantee safety on a large scale.
Also, heavy policing can have the effects of stifling uncomfortable
debates and providing cover for incompetence and corruption. This is
not to say that we should accept people trying to bully newcomers or
publish political propaganda on content pages, but I think that these
issues are best resolved locally and the norms for them are best
created locally. In some cases, problems with content may be resolved
as a secondary effect of resolving problems with conduct.
Thoughts?
Ever onward,
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
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>