Actually, you're technically even breaching
it saying it here, since the
mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.
Regards,
Todd Allen
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear Rosie,
Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:
- *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.
As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on
Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would
already be in breach of the code as written.)
Thanks,
Andreas
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
rstephenson(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines>
.
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the
accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as
2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members
voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community
members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with
77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments
received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support
necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters,
regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of
the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes
were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits
that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
follows:
1.
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC
training;
2.
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
3.
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4.
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and
the right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal
Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to
review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended
purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for
the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion,
thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better
approaches to working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> Board of
Trustees
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at: