Hello all,
The preliminary report of the results of the 2015 Harassment survey is now available on Commons, as linked from Meta.[1] This is the first version of our analysis of the results, and while it is nearly completed, it will be amended and updated within a week as we finish developing it. The data set is large, involving sixteen languages with several free text questions, and it has also been linked from the Meta page.
This information is an important factor in gaining a better understanding of both the forms harassment takes and the impact it has on the Wikimedia projects. We welcome your feedback and impressions on the Research talk page on Meta.[2]
We want to thank the many Wikimedia volunteers, academics, and Wikimedia Foundation staff who helped prepare and translate the survey, and who gave feedback on the report.
Best regards,
Patrick, for the Support and Safety team[3]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015#Results
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Harassment_survey_2015
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Support_and_Safety
Patrick,
Thank you for posting this -- excellent work done by our team and deep engagement with the community. I encourage everyone to review as we continue to assess best ways to support healthy and safe Wikimedia environment for all our contributors and readers.
Lila
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello all,
The preliminary report of the results of the 2015 Harassment survey is now available on Commons, as linked from Meta.[1] This is the first version of our analysis of the results, and while it is nearly completed, it will be amended and updated within a week as we finish developing it. The data set is large, involving sixteen languages with several free text questions, and it has also been linked from the Meta page.
This information is an important factor in gaining a better understanding of both the forms harassment takes and the impact it has on the Wikimedia projects. We welcome your feedback and impressions on the Research talk page on Meta.[2]
We want to thank the many Wikimedia volunteers, academics, and Wikimedia Foundation staff who helped prepare and translate the survey, and who gave feedback on the report.
Best regards,
Patrick, for the Support and Safety team[3]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015#Results
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Harassment_survey_2015
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Support_and_Safety
-- Patrick Earley Community Advocate Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org (1) 415 975 1874 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Patrick, I also want to thank you and the team for having done this work. It's extremely interesting and informative, and I think it will be very helpful moving forward.
Sarah
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Patrick,
Thank you for posting this -- excellent work done by our team and deep engagement with the community. I encourage everyone to review as we continue to assess best ways to support healthy and safe Wikimedia environment for all our contributors and readers.
Lila
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello all,
The preliminary report of the results of the 2015 Harassment survey is
now
available on Commons, as linked from Meta.[1] This is the first version
of
our analysis of the results, and while it is nearly completed, it will be amended and updated within a week as we finish developing it. The data
set
is large, involving sixteen languages with several free text questions,
and
it has also been linked from the Meta page.
This information is an important factor in gaining a better understanding of both the forms harassment takes and the impact it has on the Wikimedia projects. We welcome your feedback and impressions on the Research talk page on Meta.[2]
We want to thank the many Wikimedia volunteers, academics, and Wikimedia Foundation staff who helped prepare and translate the survey, and who
gave
feedback on the report.
Best regards,
Patrick, for the Support and Safety team[3]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015#Results
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Harassment_survey_2015
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Support_and_Safety
-- Patrick Earley Community Advocate Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org (1) 415 975 1874 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Thanks Patrick, a wonderful first step.
For future updates, I hope you can find ways to add data from automated analysis of interactions, like the League of Legends example Toby shared a few months back.
Sam
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello all,
The preliminary report of the results of the 2015 Harassment survey is now available on Commons, as linked from Meta.[1] This is the first version of our analysis of the results, and while it is nearly completed, it will be amended and updated within a week as we finish developing it. The data set is large, involving sixteen languages with several free text questions, and it has also been linked from the Meta page.
This information is an important factor in gaining a better understanding of both the forms harassment takes and the impact it has on the Wikimedia projects. We welcome your feedback and impressions on the Research talk page on Meta.[2]
We want to thank the many Wikimedia volunteers, academics, and Wikimedia Foundation staff who helped prepare and translate the survey, and who gave feedback on the report.
Best regards,
Patrick, for the Support and Safety team[3]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015#Results
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Harassment_survey_2015
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Support_and_Safety
-- Patrick Earley Community Advocate Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org (1) 415 975 1874 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Thank you Patrick.
The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment respondents cite.
User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking.
Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's going on in this community.
Tobias
* I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been harassed or maybe harassed (54%).
Hi, Tobias.
In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints of this happening to both men and women.
Best,
Maggie
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Tobias church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
Thank you Patrick.
The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment respondents cite.
User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking.
Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's going on in this community.
Tobias
- I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of
users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been harassed or maybe harassed (54%).
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Hi Maggie,
On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints of this happening to both men and women.
thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how this very high percentage can be explained.
Tobias
Maggie gave the answer: "and cases where existing pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and misattributed as being them."
It isn't dependent on an actual published photo. You can take any old photo, slap "Philippe beau fete" on it, and run with it. (You CAN....but please don't.)
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe.beaudette@icloud.com
On Jan 30, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Tobias church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Maggie,
On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote: In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints of this happening to both men and women.
thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how this very high percentage can be explained.
Tobias
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Hi, Tobias.
The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to drive them away.
Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have* seen in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks of one kind or another are sadly really common.
Best,
Maggie
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Maggie,
On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in
complaints
of this happening to both men and women.
thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how this very high percentage can be explained.
Tobias
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
As an oversighter on Wikimedia Commons, I have witness what has been described by Maggie and Philippe.
We should take such reports seriously, instead of trying to invalidate the result. The denial is hindering improvements. Le 30 janv. 2016 3:03 PM, "Maggie Dennis" mdennis@wikimedia.org a écrit :
Hi, Tobias.
The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to drive them away.
Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have* seen in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks of one kind or another are sadly really common.
Best,
Maggie
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias <church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com
wrote:
Hi Maggie,
On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind
of
harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of
the
individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where
existing
pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in
complaints
of this happening to both men and women.
thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how this very high percentage can be explained.
Tobias
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
-- Maggie Dennis Director, Support and Safety Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
"On 30 January 2016 at 14:20, Pierre-Selim pierre-selim@huard.info wrote:
We should take such reports seriously, instead of trying to invalidate the result. The denial is hindering improvements.
It certainly wasn't my intention to deny that this occurs, nor it's potentially devastating impact on victims - indeed, I've witnessed it happening to friends. Nor have I seen others denying it, in this discussion.
I was referring to the claimed prevalence ("almost one third of the respondents were themselves the subject of revenge porn"); which is not a credible either as a reflection of the wider community, or in the context of this survey, in which 38% reported experiencing harassment of any type; and which suggests a flawed sampling or measuring process.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised either. Can't discuss details for obvious reasons, but some of the stuff I saw while on the ArbCom would really make your hair curl. Trolls can get pretty vicious.
Todd
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Tobias church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
Right. Thanks Philippe and Maggie!
Tobias
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Hi Tobias,
Like Maggie, I was not surprised that people (both men and women) were reporting revenge porn because I know of reports in the Wikimedia community, but like her I was surprised that this survey showed revenge porn being reported by this many people.
But it is not surprising that the people who experienced the worst types of harassment, or type that the WMF and wikimedia community is the least able to address would respond to this survey.
Without further verification, I would not suggest the 65% figure to be representative of the whole wikimedia community of people who are harassed. Most people understand that this type of survey sample would not produce results that are representative of the whole community.
But it does show an example of a type of extreme harassment that poorly understood by the community. This information can help educate the WMF and the wikimedia community, and hopefully will help find better ways of assisting the people being harassed.
Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Maggie Dennis mdennis@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, Tobias.
The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to drive them away.
Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have* seen in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks of one kind or another are sadly really common.
Best,
Maggie
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Maggie,
On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in
complaints
of this happening to both men and women.
thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how this very high percentage can be explained.
Tobias
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
-- Maggie Dennis Director, Support and Safety Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
I have been surprised again and again by a casual form of vandalism that goes unchecked because it is possibly seen as humorous. Here is an example of something I have corrected in passing (and can remember how to find in order to link it here): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Devouard&type=revisi...
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Tobias,
Like Maggie, I was not surprised that people (both men and women) were reporting revenge porn because I know of reports in the Wikimedia community, but like her I was surprised that this survey showed revenge porn being reported by this many people.
But it is not surprising that the people who experienced the worst types of harassment, or type that the WMF and wikimedia community is the least able to address would respond to this survey.
Without further verification, I would not suggest the 65% figure to be representative of the whole wikimedia community of people who are harassed. Most people understand that this type of survey sample would not produce results that are representative of the whole community.
But it does show an example of a type of extreme harassment that poorly understood by the community. This information can help educate the WMF and the wikimedia community, and hopefully will help find better ways of assisting the people being harassed.
Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Maggie Dennis mdennis@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, Tobias.
The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution
is
not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent
seems
to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to drive them away.
Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have*
seen
in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks of one kind or another are sadly really common.
Best,
Maggie
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias <
church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com>
wrote:
Hi Maggie,
On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind
of
harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of
the
individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where
existing
pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in
complaints
of this happening to both men and women.
thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how this very high percentage can be explained.
Tobias
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
-- Maggie Dennis Director, Support and Safety Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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
A similar situation happened to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito&diff=685988175&oldid... or just a couple of days ago most of my uploads at Commons were deleted because a long-term abuser filled them with crappy "{{Copyviol|request file delegation abusive vandalisme copyright}}" tags.
I've been subjected to various forms of online harassment for years but I feel safe enough since I wouldn't fear any of them in RL (nor I use socialnetworks).
Still I must confess what can become frustrating is seeing sort of "tolerance" towards this kind of attack. IMnsHO anything clearly aimed at harassing other users should trigger a wide zero-tolerance reaction, regardless of any "credit" owned by the perpetrator.
Vito
Il 30/01/2016 16:18, Jane Darnell ha scritto:
I have been surprised again and again by a casual form of vandalism that goes unchecked because it is possibly seen as humorous. Here is an example of something I have corrected in passing (and can remember how to find in order to link it here): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Devouard&type=revisi...
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
I think you meant to link this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito&type=revision&diff=6...
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Vituzzu vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
A similar situation happened to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito&diff=685988175&oldid... or just a couple of days ago most of my uploads at Commons were deleted because a long-term abuser filled them with crappy "{{Copyviol|request file delegation abusive vandalisme copyright}}" tags.
I've been subjected to various forms of online harassment for years but I feel safe enough since I wouldn't fear any of them in RL (nor I use socialnetworks).
Still I must confess what can become frustrating is seeing sort of "tolerance" towards this kind of attack. IMnsHO anything clearly aimed at harassing other users should trigger a wide zero-tolerance reaction, regardless of any "credit" owned by the perpetrator.
Vito
Il 30/01/2016 16:18, Jane Darnell ha scritto:
I have been surprised again and again by a casual form of vandalism that goes unchecked because it is possibly seen as humorous. Here is an example of something I have corrected in passing (and can remember how to find in order to link it here):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Devouard&type=revisi...
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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
Il 30/01/2016 18:12, Jane Darnell ha scritto:
I think you meant to link this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito&type=revision&diff=6...
Nope, I exactly meant the link I posted :D
Mine wasn't a criticism of Bgwhite but I wanted to point out he dealt with it as that was a good-faith edit. As said I don't want to criticise him but this is, imvho, a sign of an overall lack of attention by us to potential harassment/libel/outing situations.
Vito
(meanwhile BDA, the troll above, is being "helped" by a good-faith user to reinstate his contents, but that's a different matter)
30.01.2016, 14:03, "Maggie Dennis" <email clipped>:
The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to drive them away.
That was the story of Lightbreather, a English Wiipedia editor that self-identified as female. She ran afoul of some other editor that (IIRC, I'm confident this is basically correct) that labeled some images on a porn site as being her (they were labeled "Lightbreather"). The outcome (GET THIS!) was that she (Lightbreather!) was formally banned by Arbcom for complaining about it at Wikipedia. They said she was "outing" the culprit by calling attention to his off-wiki activities.
Horrendous I know and tends to shows that Arbcom and the rest of Enwiki administrative structure genuinely have a problem with women, which they are often alleged to (i.e. in Gamergate and all that).
Trillium Corsage
PS: A similar thing happened to editor Kiefer Wolfowitz. After seeking in vain to get a email reply about another editor that was exhibiting curious-approaching-alarming interactions with boys and young men, he sought, in measured terms, comments from the arbs and WMF staff on WIkipedia. Arbcom then banned Kiefer, protecting the editor in question with whom at least one of the arbs (Wormthatturned) was very friendly. I guess a year or so after that, the WMF quietly issued a no-comment "SanFranBan" against the editor Kiefer had complained about. Which would indicate Kiefer had a legitimate concern all along.
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016, Trillium Corsage wrote:
30.01.2016, 14:03, "Maggie Dennis" <email clipped>:
The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to drive them away.
That was the story of Lightbreather, a English Wiipedia editor that self-identified as female. She ran afoul of some other editor that (IIRC, I'm confident this is basically correct) that labeled some images on a porn site as being her (they were labeled "Lightbreather"). The outcome (GET THIS!) was that she (Lightbreather!) was formally banned by Arbcom for complaining about it at Wikipedia. They said she was "outing" the culprit by calling attention to his off-wiki activities.
Horrendous I know and tends to shows that Arbcom and the rest of Enwiki administrative structure genuinely have a problem with women, which they are often alleged to (i.e. in Gamergate and all that).
Trillium Corsage
Unfortunately you memory is not quite correct regarding Lightbreather. She was not banned for complaining about being harassed, she was banned for repeated and persistent breaches of behavioural policies on Wikipedia, repeated breaches of topic bans related to gun control, ownership of articles, revert and edit warring, casting aspersions, causing disruption to make a point and, partictularly, outing attempting to out another editor (on and off Wikipedia) - despite being explicitly warned (more than once) that she must not do that.
The full decision can be read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreat...
She was, very unfortunately and completely unacceptably, harassed off-wiki by two individuals during the case (so far as I am aware, independently). One of those individuals was banned as soon as we (arbcom) were made aware of the harassment as there was a clear and direct link to a Wikipedia user.
There was not a direct link between the other harasser and any Wikipedia user, and so ArbCom, the English Wikipedia functionaries team and the Foundation spent a lot of time and effort investigating who the harasser was. This investigation produced an indirect link (with iirc at least four intermediate steps) to a specific Wikipedia editor, but there was no consensus that the link was strong enough to take action - although there was universal agreement that the perpertrator should be banned if identified.
Basically there were three possibilities - 1. the Wikipedia editor and the harasser were the same person. 2. the Wikipedia editor was being framed. 3. the harassment was linked to the Wikipedia editor entirely coincidentally. Only in the case of 1 would action against the Wikipedia editor be justified, but the evidence was not strong enough to be sure this was the case. However bad the harassment is, it is important to remember that alleged perpretrators are still innocent until proven otherwise.
After the case (1-2 months later I think) more evidence was found that bypassed the weakest link in the previous chain. After more investigation it was found that this link, while still indirect, was sufficient to connect the harassment to the Wikipedia editor and they were swiftly banned.
Far from punishing Lightbreather for complaining about being harassed, Arbcom, Functionaries and the Foundation all offered her as much support as they were able to deal with the effects of the harassment, to identify her harasser and to take what real-world action she could against that person. Unfortunately, as the law in most jurisdictions is years or even decades behind the times when it comes to harassment, there is all too often very little that can be done through legal channels. In Lightbreather's case, I believe that Lightbreather, her harasser, the WMF and the external website on which she was harassed are all based in different jurisdictions which only makes things even more complicated.
It thus really does not suprise me that the survey respondents report the effectiveness of legal action so poorly.
Chris
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
Maggie Dennis mdennis@wikimedia.org wrote:
In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints of this happening to both men and women.
[…]
That was not asked and reported by the Harassment Survey, though. Question #6 as per https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015/Questions was:
| How many times have you experienced incidents like the ones | described below while working on any of the Wikimedia | projects?
| […]
| - Sexually explicit or sexualised photos of me have been | published without my consent
| […]
Even subsuming the second alternative as "revenge porn" is very problematic as in the public perception and that of the courts it is a breach of the implicit confidentiality under which (real) images were originally produced.
Tim
On 30 January 2016 at 13:14, Tobias church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's going on in this community.
Possibly an artefact of a self-selecting audience.
Hi Tobias,
In addition to Maggie's attempt to explain why the numbers might seem high, the reported percentages on slide #17 are not out of the total pool of respondents (~3800) but out of those who reported experiencing harassment (~1200).
e.g. as there were 740 respondents reported "revenge porn", this brings the percentage down to 19% out of the general pool of respondents, and in the range of up to 25% in regard to other categories of harassment.
That said, even with 18-25%, I think this is still rather on the high end of the spectrum. My alternative theory to explain this is around the used terminology in the survey. Terms like "revenge porn" or "doxing" are still comparatively new [1] [2] to casual internet users, not to mention to good faith Wikipedia contributors, and chances that some of the respondents confused them for something else (porn, or revenge .. etc) is not an unlikely scenario.
[1] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=revenge%20porn [2] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=doxxing
Hope this helps.
*--* *Haitham Shammaa* *Senior Strategist* *Wikimedia Foundation*
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a reality!*
*--* *Haitham Shammaa* *Senior Strategist* *Wikimedia Foundation*
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a reality!*
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Tobias church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
Thank you Patrick.
The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment respondents cite.
User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking.
Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's going on in this community.
Tobias
- I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of
users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been harassed or maybe harassed (54%).
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Some of the things that users might consider "revenge porn" would include porn that is sent to them via email (either images or text - both of which I've received), or images/comments posted to their userspace or to other places where it was intended to come to their attention (e.g., obviously inappropriate images posted to article talk pages). Links and "easter eggs" leading to similar content could also be considered "revenge porn". Context is often important. In particular, the Wikimedia projects host a vast quantity of images and media that are appropriate to a limited number of articles but would be inappropriate or even offensive in other presentations.
Risker/Anne
On 30 January 2016 at 13:37, Haitham Shammaa hshammaa@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Tobias,
In addition to Maggie's attempt to explain why the numbers might seem high, the reported percentages on slide #17 are not out of the total pool of respondents (~3800) but out of those who reported experiencing harassment (~1200).
e.g. as there were 740 respondents reported "revenge porn", this brings the percentage down to 19% out of the general pool of respondents, and in the range of up to 25% in regard to other categories of harassment.
That said, even with 18-25%, I think this is still rather on the high end of the spectrum. My alternative theory to explain this is around the used terminology in the survey. Terms like "revenge porn" or "doxing" are still comparatively new [1] [2] to casual internet users, not to mention to good faith Wikipedia contributors, and chances that some of the respondents confused them for something else (porn, or revenge .. etc) is not an unlikely scenario.
[1] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=revenge%20porn [2] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=doxxing
Hope this helps.
*--* *Haitham Shammaa* *Senior Strategist* *Wikimedia Foundation*
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a reality!*
*--* *Haitham Shammaa* *Senior Strategist* *Wikimedia Foundation*
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a reality!*
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Tobias <church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com
wrote:
Thank you Patrick.
The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment respondents cite.
User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking.
Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's going on in this community.
Tobias
- I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of
users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been harassed or maybe harassed (54%).
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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@lists.wikimedia.org