Kaya
When we look at number we to interpret them in ways that the numbers themselves don't.
Think about this 40% that think the the policies need 'quite a bit of improvement' but that doesnt tell us if it because the policy failed to protect them. More importantly it also doesn't say if was the way the policy was interpreted or applied or if the community just failed to uphold the policy because one party was being protected. We can all bring instances of where policy fails or where policy is use as means of asserting power to the table, en wikipedia's arbcom is littered with decisions arising from such disputes.
How could 7 people sit in judgement over thousands of cultural norms and practices spread across 300 plus languages and really make any honest assessment of what took place, why , or the understandings. How could someone who lives Iceland understand the cultural differences in a place like India and understand all that is taking place. Could someone in India who lives those experiences even understand the intricacies of every language, religion, and caste that makes up the society even do it without bringing their own bias to the fore. I'm in Australia where we have 300+ plus unique cultures and languages one of the most difficult things is to unpack is the cultural bias of there being a mono-generic "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Culture" even on Wikipedia we speak mostly in mono-generic tone because its a bias that runs through the sources.
The GCC would need to be significantly bigger in number to ensure diversity, it'd need an even larger number of trusted interpreters even then one word that doesnt translate well could change the whole outcome. Yes our policies arent perfect but its them and way they are interpreted at community level that needs the work, not from some small privileged group sitting up high judgement.
We need our affiliates to be give the resource to run training session and workshops for admins on how policies should work, we need to address the wikilawyers and pendants who revel in the meaning of a single word rather than the spirit of its intention.
Even if we were to get it absolutely right with the first 7 people, we know that people with agendas are attracted to and will eventually force their way on such committees and remodel it in their own vision. Honestly we need to stop building castles and anointing kings instead focus on making more room in the fields so everything can grow.
Boodar-wun
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 01:40, Philip Kopetzky philip.kopetzky@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pine,
I don't think a global commitee would be the right place - stewards are currently filling this gap involuntarily, and it seems extremely difficult to judge situations on a local project properly (the Azerbaijani case might come to mind here).
For me the ideal version of a universal CoC would limit itself to a very basic foundation, which would then be adapted and developed on a regional and local level to better fit the needs of the various communities, as you mention above, including local laws that may prohibit certain behaviour (as is the case in Germany and Austria with any glorification of nationalsocialism for example). The global council would also arbitrate in certain conflicts that happen between regions or projects, but this is more of a theoretical experiment right now I think.
Best, Philip
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 04:37, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I have published a draft proposal at the bottom of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct. Discussion is welcome.
A difficult issue is how to support diversity of expressions and opinions, even when those expressions or opinions may offend others, while also supporting civility. At this point, I think that civility policies are best left to local communities. However, I welcome others' opinions, including alternate proposals.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe