Hello All,
We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians 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. At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
-
58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
-
Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote -
Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are automatically complete.
From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the voter’s responses.
In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.
Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways over the last year.
Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the Enforcement Guidelines.
Regards,
Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team
Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
Thank you Stella,
Thank you for sharing, I'm looking forward to an evaluation of how this vote was executed, so that we can use these methods for more topics/decisions in a constructive way. I'm pleased to see how the process has seen various types of community engagement, and this seems a good step in the right direction. I guess it's hard to expect more turnout than this. (sidenote: the fact that this announcement is being made by a WMF staff member probably means that this process is less community driven than I thought. )
For a fundamental document like this, I'm surprised to see that there is 40+% opposition. Is there a good understanding of what in the UCoC is causing so much opposition?
I'm asking, because this is supposed to be a universal code, and even if this opposition was randomly distributed in our communities, it would be quite likely that there is a meaningful number of communities where there would be a majority against, if we would split up the vote by community. In such a case, I imagine that understanding the reasons why people are against, and whether something can be done to mitigate this (or that any universal document could likely meet similar opposition) is the least we could be expected to attempt.
Warmly, Lodewijk
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:32 PM Stella Ng sng@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello All,
We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians 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. At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are automatically complete.
From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the voter’s responses.
In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.
Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways over the last year.
Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the Enforcement Guidelines.
Regards,
Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team
Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:34 AM effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Stella,
Thank you Lodewijk for voicing a critical perspective. Hope you do not mind me adding a few points inline.
Thank you for sharing, I'm looking forward to an evaluation of how this vote was executed, so that we can use these methods for more topics/decisions in a constructive way. I'm pleased to see how the process has seen various types of community engagement, and this seems a good step in the right direction. I guess it's hard to expect more turnout than this.
I think turnout could have been much better at least in smaller language communities. From the experience in the projects I am active in there was a lack of targeted outreach and proactive work, which rendered the whole process super Meta. Doing text translations and putting notices is neither enough nor a good way to communicate complexity and urgency to those most in need of UCoC. New users who joined sub-ideal wikis (not just very toxic) could not meet voting criteria as easily, though the document was mostly to address their most basic needs.
(sidenote: the fact that this announcement is being made by a WMF staff
member probably means that this process is less community driven than I thought. )
For a fundamental document like this, I'm surprised to see that there is 40+% opposition. Is there a good understanding of what in the UCoC is causing so much opposition?
Not surprised as vocal critics were constantly present in the process...their critique was only partly addressed and of course there is prevailance with older Wikipedians not to change (much) and let alone fast + top down.
I'm asking, because this is supposed to be a universal code, and even if this opposition was randomly distributed in our communities, it would be quite likely that there is a meaningful number of communities where there would be a majority against, if we would split up the vote by community. In such a case, I imagine that understanding the reasons why people are against, and whether something can be done to mitigate this (or that any universal document could likely meet similar opposition) is the least we could be expected to attempt.
The construction of vote procedure did not allow for partial support (one I would also prefer myself) but only binary + comment. This is suboptimal for lengthy documents and elaborate (but suboptimal) processes.
Warm regards, Z. Blace
Warmly, Lodewijk
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:32 PM Stella Ng sng@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello All,
We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians 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. At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are automatically complete.
From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the voter’s responses.
In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.
Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways over the last year.
Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the Enforcement Guidelines.
Regards,
Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team
Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:25 AM Željko Blaće zblace@mi2.hr wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:34 AM effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
(sidenote: the fact that this announcement is being made by a WMF staff member probably means that this process is less community driven than I thought. ) For a fundamental document like this, I'm surprised to see that there is 40+% opposition. Is there a good understanding of what in the UCoC is causing so much opposition?
That's a good question. I'd like to see a summary of feedback and open issues. [NTS: we need an 'Issues' tab alongside Talk pages] Some common points made in Meta discussions that remain unaddressed:
Oveararching: * No sufficient mechanism for revision / self-correction [*and no 'partial support' option, as Z. said. leaving a 'no' as the only way to push for other revisions*]
Basic concerns: ⁑ Mandatory? training ⁑ Mandatory? pledge‽ ⁑ No right to be heard ⁑ Easy to troll + game
Broader concerns: ⁂ Long / confusing text, hard to translate, harder to apply evenly ⁂ Could override rather than support local community governance ⁂ Feels WMF-driven rather than community-driven ... ⁂ ... could become time-eating bureaucracy regardless of benefit
The construction of vote procedure did not allow for partial support (one I
would also prefer myself) but only binary + comment. This is suboptimal for lengthy documents and elaborate (but suboptimal) processes.
Our conduct policies were carefully crafted by hundreds of brilliant people over the course of twenty years, building upon endless experience and detailed discussions that could fill books upon books.
The UCoC Project ... seems to be built to supersede all that we've built in this area, with an extremely inadequate replacement. It apparently abandoned the idea of being a "minimal baseline" in favor of including every preferred (and even aspirational) point available. The Enforcement Guidelines thoroughly place the UCoC itself front-and-center, requiring extensive linking and pushing it to be read by everyone (we have a hard enough time getting people to read the existing conduct policies; making everything link to UCoC will definitely drastically reduce the reach of existing policies if not eliminate their presence outright), mandatory pledges/affirmations of the UCoC and compulsory UCoC training (both as prerequisites to sysop participation, conditions which will likely strip the ranks).
The UCoC is a text that the community did not write. It remains filled with dozens of very serious issues, but volunteers were never invited to edit it. Basic attempts at even cleaning up the document's language were reverted, as the staff are quite clear that it is not a Wikimedia document that community efforts may be directly part of. Larger issues were ignored. Even if we were to grant the idea that we would centralize conduct policies and remove local variation in acceptable practices, it looks to me that this attempt at producing a viable policy did not work. The WMF appointees who wrote the UCoC, while they surely worked hard on the document over the few months given to write the text, were quite reasonably not capable of doing the kind of work we typically expect from the large numbers of experienced volunteers who build core policies over the course of a much longer time period.
Even taking into account the WMF's extensive campaign to convince people that the UCoC was good (and to vote accordingly), and their admission that they intended to keep pushing the UCoC indefinitely until a vote passed in the direction they wanted, I am surprised and dismayed at the result of the vote. The 57% support outcome (or 58.6% if one discounts neutral votes, as is often the practice), while well below the amount typically needed to establish consensus for a policy, is above the threshold the WMF determined to use for their own purposes.
I don't know where we can go from here, or what the Board will do with this situation. Numerous contributors have already pointed out that these numbers fall clearly under "no consensus". The staff seem to have realized that removing sysop tools from a large portion of the admin corps as required would be disastrous. One of the more egregious problems present in the UCoC text is already likely to be the subject of review following an open letter by a user group, though many, many others remain largely unconsidered. Local community preparatory work for dealing with possible WMF action is ... roughly what I would expect (including the commitments to not cooperate with UCoC efforts, or to implement them).
This is a pretty bad situation.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ג׳, 5 באפר׳ 2022 ב-17:32 מאת Stella Ng <sng@wikimedia.org >:
Hello All,
We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians 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. At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are automatically complete.
From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the voter’s responses.
In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.
Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways over the last year.
Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the Enforcement Guidelines.
Regards,
Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team
Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Let me clarify a few points.
- The vote was intended to surface what concerns might exist more broadly in the international communities, not all of whom engage in Meta discussions. Staff were neither asked to convince people to vote for the enforcement guidelines as written nor even encouraged to. They are not held to account for the speed with which the Guidelines are approved nor for the language within it. It is their job to facilitate. - The vote threshold is the point at which it is ready to engage the Board for their further directions. We expect to see issues coalescing in a way to help funnel attention to them to provide input internationally, in multilingual facilitated review. - The intention is indeed that if major issues have been identified in the enforcement guidelines, they will go back to a vote, again and again, until there is a version that is workable, with a period before each vote for evaluating issues and addressing them. - The UCoC drafters have been international volunteers with experience working on Wikimedia projects from multiple angles and multiple languages. They do not all agree on every line as written and have worked very hard to come up with a document that can be tested and refined until it is ready to be put into use.
It is true that the policy and guideline are not open to editing in the same way that some local community policies are. Like the Terms of Use itself and the Privacy Policy, neither of which are open to edits, it is a document that will have formal methods for modification. In the case of the UCoC, the plan is to review it (policy and enforcement guideline) on an annual basis to see what is working and what is not, with an understanding that behavioral policies can work in unexpected ways and have unexpected outcomes and even that what people understand to be acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior evolves over time.
Best, Maggie
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:10 AM Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
Our conduct policies were carefully crafted by hundreds of brilliant people over the course of twenty years, building upon endless experience and detailed discussions that could fill books upon books.
The UCoC Project ... seems to be built to supersede all that we've built in this area, with an extremely inadequate replacement. It apparently abandoned the idea of being a "minimal baseline" in favor of including every preferred (and even aspirational) point available. The Enforcement Guidelines thoroughly place the UCoC itself front-and-center, requiring extensive linking and pushing it to be read by everyone (we have a hard enough time getting people to read the existing conduct policies; making everything link to UCoC will definitely drastically reduce the reach of existing policies if not eliminate their presence outright), mandatory pledges/affirmations of the UCoC and compulsory UCoC training (both as prerequisites to sysop participation, conditions which will likely strip the ranks).
The UCoC is a text that the community did not write. It remains filled with dozens of very serious issues, but volunteers were never invited to edit it. Basic attempts at even cleaning up the document's language were reverted, as the staff are quite clear that it is not a Wikimedia document that community efforts may be directly part of. Larger issues were ignored. Even if we were to grant the idea that we would centralize conduct policies and remove local variation in acceptable practices, it looks to me that this attempt at producing a viable policy did not work. The WMF appointees who wrote the UCoC, while they surely worked hard on the document over the few months given to write the text, were quite reasonably not capable of doing the kind of work we typically expect from the large numbers of experienced volunteers who build core policies over the course of a much longer time period.
Even taking into account the WMF's extensive campaign to convince people that the UCoC was good (and to vote accordingly), and their admission that they intended to keep pushing the UCoC indefinitely until a vote passed in the direction they wanted, I am surprised and dismayed at the result of the vote. The 57% support outcome (or 58.6% if one discounts neutral votes, as is often the practice), while well below the amount typically needed to establish consensus for a policy, is above the threshold the WMF determined to use for their own purposes.
I don't know where we can go from here, or what the Board will do with this situation. Numerous contributors have already pointed out that these numbers fall clearly under "no consensus". The staff seem to have realized that removing sysop tools from a large portion of the admin corps as required would be disastrous. One of the more egregious problems present in the UCoC text is already likely to be the subject of review following an open letter by a user group, though many, many others remain largely unconsidered. Local community preparatory work for dealing with possible WMF action is ... roughly what I would expect (including the commitments to not cooperate with UCoC efforts, or to implement them).
This is a pretty bad situation.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ג׳, 5 באפר׳ 2022 ב-17:32 מאת Stella Ng <sng@wikimedia.org >:
Hello All,
We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians 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. At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are automatically complete.
From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the voter’s responses.
In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.
Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways over the last year.
Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the Enforcement Guidelines.
Regards,
Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team
Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear Maggie,
Could I ask you for help with a couple of things:
1. The UCoC states that "sharing information concerning other contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects" is harassment. Is it really the WMF's intention to prohibit public discussions of controversial editing? To give some examples, in the past English Wikipedia arbitrators commented on cases like the Scientology case or the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (Wifione) case in the press. Following the letter of the UCoC, they would no longer be allowed to do so. Even articles like https://www.cnet.com/science/features/wikipedia-is-at-war-over-the-coronavir... fall foul of the letter of the UCoC as written today, with every Wikipedian involved in it guilty of harassment, per the UCoC. Is it really your intention to prevent volunteers from discussing anyone's Wikipedia activity outside the project? And if it isn't – could you help us prevail upon your colleagues in the WMF board and the drafting committee to just fix the sentence and have it unambiguously say what they really mean?
2. The UCoC states that the following is harassment: "Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want." We have, and always have had, and always will have, users with sincerely and passionately held fringe beliefs about matters of science, politics, religion, etc., as well as users lacking basic compentency in the subject area or language they choose to work in. How can they be prevented from inserting erroneous material without causing them to doubt their own perceptions etc. in a way that they may well – in good faith – is malicious?
Andreas
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:02 PM Maggie Dennis mdennis@wikimedia.org wrote:
Let me clarify a few points.
- The vote was intended to surface what concerns might exist more
broadly in the international communities, not all of whom engage in Meta discussions. Staff were neither asked to convince people to vote for the enforcement guidelines as written nor even encouraged to. They are not held to account for the speed with which the Guidelines are approved nor for the language within it. It is their job to facilitate.
- The vote threshold is the point at which it is ready to engage
the Board for their further directions. We expect to see issues coalescing in a way to help funnel attention to them to provide input internationally, in multilingual facilitated review.
- The intention is indeed that if major issues have been identified in
the enforcement guidelines, they will go back to a vote, again and again, until there is a version that is workable, with a period before each vote for evaluating issues and addressing them.
- The UCoC drafters have been international volunteers with experience
working on Wikimedia projects from multiple angles and multiple languages. They do not all agree on every line as written and have worked very hard to come up with a document that can be tested and refined until it is ready to be put into use.
It is true that the policy and guideline are not open to editing in the same way that some local community policies are. Like the Terms of Use itself and the Privacy Policy, neither of which are open to edits, it is a document that will have formal methods for modification. In the case of the UCoC, the plan is to review it (policy and enforcement guideline) on an annual basis to see what is working and what is not, with an understanding that behavioral policies can work in unexpected ways and have unexpected outcomes and even that what people understand to be acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior evolves over time.
Best, Maggie
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:10 AM Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
Our conduct policies were carefully crafted by hundreds of brilliant people over the course of twenty years, building upon endless experience and detailed discussions that could fill books upon books.
The UCoC Project ... seems to be built to supersede all that we've built in this area, with an extremely inadequate replacement. It apparently abandoned the idea of being a "minimal baseline" in favor of including every preferred (and even aspirational) point available. The Enforcement Guidelines thoroughly place the UCoC itself front-and-center, requiring extensive linking and pushing it to be read by everyone (we have a hard enough time getting people to read the existing conduct policies; making everything link to UCoC will definitely drastically reduce the reach of existing policies if not eliminate their presence outright), mandatory pledges/affirmations of the UCoC and compulsory UCoC training (both as prerequisites to sysop participation, conditions which will likely strip the ranks).
The UCoC is a text that the community did not write. It remains filled with dozens of very serious issues, but volunteers were never invited to edit it. Basic attempts at even cleaning up the document's language were reverted, as the staff are quite clear that it is not a Wikimedia document that community efforts may be directly part of. Larger issues were ignored. Even if we were to grant the idea that we would centralize conduct policies and remove local variation in acceptable practices, it looks to me that this attempt at producing a viable policy did not work. The WMF appointees who wrote the UCoC, while they surely worked hard on the document over the few months given to write the text, were quite reasonably not capable of doing the kind of work we typically expect from the large numbers of experienced volunteers who build core policies over the course of a much longer time period.
Even taking into account the WMF's extensive campaign to convince people that the UCoC was good (and to vote accordingly), and their admission that they intended to keep pushing the UCoC indefinitely until a vote passed in the direction they wanted, I am surprised and dismayed at the result of the vote. The 57% support outcome (or 58.6% if one discounts neutral votes, as is often the practice), while well below the amount typically needed to establish consensus for a policy, is above the threshold the WMF determined to use for their own purposes.
I don't know where we can go from here, or what the Board will do with this situation. Numerous contributors have already pointed out that these numbers fall clearly under "no consensus". The staff seem to have realized that removing sysop tools from a large portion of the admin corps as required would be disastrous. One of the more egregious problems present in the UCoC text is already likely to be the subject of review following an open letter by a user group, though many, many others remain largely unconsidered. Local community preparatory work for dealing with possible WMF action is ... roughly what I would expect (including the commitments to not cooperate with UCoC efforts, or to implement them).
This is a pretty bad situation.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ג׳, 5 באפר׳ 2022 ב-17:32 מאת Stella Ng <sng@wikimedia.org >:
Hello All,
We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians 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. At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are automatically complete.
From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the voter’s responses.
In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.
Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways over the last year.
Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the Enforcement Guidelines.
Regards,
Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team
Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Maggie Dennis She/her/hers Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
I have been working on the UCoC about as long as anybody, if not as intensely as some. Hence, I have some confidence in saying that it is the Foundation's role to shepherd the Movement Strategy recommendation to reality in creating a baseline of behavioral standards that are movement-wide. *I* have opinions about what is and is not good conduct and how conduct can and should be reinforced, but the Code of Conduct was not written to reflect *my* opinions *or* the Foundation's - the drafting committee was a disparate group working to incorporate the feedback of volunteers and staff from all across the movement.
The questions you raise strike me as very good discussion good points for the planned future policy review. Policies run into gray areas unless they are so generic as to be toothless. We will occasionally have hard conversations in application when we discover unintended or negative consequences. This is not a new challenge to the movement. I think it's one of the things Wikimedia does rather well.
In terms of "in good faith" and "is malicious" - my understanding of malice from both a linguistic and legal sense is that it includes the *intent* to do harm. Beyond that, while your question "How can they be prevented from inserting erroneous material without causing them to doubt their own perceptions etc. in a way that they may well – in good faith – is malicious?" - seems to have lost a verb or two perhaps, I think what you are asking is how people can be prevented from inserting material without maliciously causing them to doubt their own perceptions: [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]] do not require malice in calling for consensus-defined reliable sources and avoiding fringe material. That said, again, this strikes me as a discussion for the future policy review, and if actual issues arise in the meantime I have no doubt discussion will happen.
Best, Maggie
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:47 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Maggie,
Could I ask you for help with a couple of things:
- The UCoC states that "sharing information concerning other
contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects" is harassment. Is it really the WMF's intention to prohibit public discussions of controversial editing? To give some examples, in the past English Wikipedia arbitrators commented on cases like the Scientology case or the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (Wifione) case in the press. Following the letter of the UCoC, they would no longer be allowed to do so. Even articles like https://www.cnet.com/science/features/wikipedia-is-at-war-over-the-coronavir... fall foul of the letter of the UCoC as written today, with every Wikipedian involved in it guilty of harassment, per the UCoC. Is it really your intention to prevent volunteers from discussing anyone's Wikipedia activity outside the project? And if it isn't – could you help us prevail upon your colleagues in the WMF board and the drafting committee to just fix the sentence and have it unambiguously say what they really mean?
- The UCoC states that the following is harassment: "Psychological
manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want." We have, and always have had, and always will have, users with sincerely and passionately held fringe beliefs about matters of science, politics, religion, etc., as well as users lacking basic compentency in the subject area or language they choose to work in. How can they be prevented from inserting erroneous material without causing them to doubt their own perceptions etc. in a way that they may well – in good faith – is malicious?
Andreas
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:02 PM Maggie Dennis mdennis@wikimedia.org wrote:
Let me clarify a few points.
- The vote was intended to surface what concerns might exist more
broadly in the international communities, not all of whom engage in Meta discussions. Staff were neither asked to convince people to vote for the enforcement guidelines as written nor even encouraged to. They are not held to account for the speed with which the Guidelines are approved nor for the language within it. It is their job to facilitate.
- The vote threshold is the point at which it is ready to engage
the Board for their further directions. We expect to see issues coalescing in a way to help funnel attention to them to provide input internationally, in multilingual facilitated review.
- The intention is indeed that if major issues have been identified
in the enforcement guidelines, they will go back to a vote, again and again, until there is a version that is workable, with a period before each vote for evaluating issues and addressing them.
- The UCoC drafters have been international volunteers with
experience working on Wikimedia projects from multiple angles and multiple languages. They do not all agree on every line as written and have worked very hard to come up with a document that can be tested and refined until it is ready to be put into use.
It is true that the policy and guideline are not open to editing in the same way that some local community policies are. Like the Terms of Use itself and the Privacy Policy, neither of which are open to edits, it is a document that will have formal methods for modification. In the case of the UCoC, the plan is to review it (policy and enforcement guideline) on an annual basis to see what is working and what is not, with an understanding that behavioral policies can work in unexpected ways and have unexpected outcomes and even that what people understand to be acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior evolves over time.
Best, Maggie
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:10 AM Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
Our conduct policies were carefully crafted by hundreds of brilliant people over the course of twenty years, building upon endless experience and detailed discussions that could fill books upon books.
The UCoC Project ... seems to be built to supersede all that we've built in this area, with an extremely inadequate replacement. It apparently abandoned the idea of being a "minimal baseline" in favor of including every preferred (and even aspirational) point available. The Enforcement Guidelines thoroughly place the UCoC itself front-and-center, requiring extensive linking and pushing it to be read by everyone (we have a hard enough time getting people to read the existing conduct policies; making everything link to UCoC will definitely drastically reduce the reach of existing policies if not eliminate their presence outright), mandatory pledges/affirmations of the UCoC and compulsory UCoC training (both as prerequisites to sysop participation, conditions which will likely strip the ranks).
The UCoC is a text that the community did not write. It remains filled with dozens of very serious issues, but volunteers were never invited to edit it. Basic attempts at even cleaning up the document's language were reverted, as the staff are quite clear that it is not a Wikimedia document that community efforts may be directly part of. Larger issues were ignored. Even if we were to grant the idea that we would centralize conduct policies and remove local variation in acceptable practices, it looks to me that this attempt at producing a viable policy did not work. The WMF appointees who wrote the UCoC, while they surely worked hard on the document over the few months given to write the text, were quite reasonably not capable of doing the kind of work we typically expect from the large numbers of experienced volunteers who build core policies over the course of a much longer time period.
Even taking into account the WMF's extensive campaign to convince people that the UCoC was good (and to vote accordingly), and their admission that they intended to keep pushing the UCoC indefinitely until a vote passed in the direction they wanted, I am surprised and dismayed at the result of the vote. The 57% support outcome (or 58.6% if one discounts neutral votes, as is often the practice), while well below the amount typically needed to establish consensus for a policy, is above the threshold the WMF determined to use for their own purposes.
I don't know where we can go from here, or what the Board will do with this situation. Numerous contributors have already pointed out that these numbers fall clearly under "no consensus". The staff seem to have realized that removing sysop tools from a large portion of the admin corps as required would be disastrous. One of the more egregious problems present in the UCoC text is already likely to be the subject of review following an open letter by a user group, though many, many others remain largely unconsidered. Local community preparatory work for dealing with possible WMF action is ... roughly what I would expect (including the commitments to not cooperate with UCoC efforts, or to implement them).
This is a pretty bad situation.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ג׳, 5 באפר׳ 2022 ב-17:32 מאת Stella Ng < sng@wikimedia.org>:
Hello All,
We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians 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. At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are automatically complete.
From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the voter’s responses.
In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.
Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways over the last year.
Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the Enforcement Guidelines.
Regards,
Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team
Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Maggie Dennis She/her/hers Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Maggie,
As you correctly noted, I lost a verb there. What I meant to say was: "How can they be prevented from inserting erroneous material without causing them to doubt their own perceptions etc. in a way that they may well – in good faith – *feel* is malicious?"
We have this all the time: people with cherished beliefs in alternative medicine, religious dogma, conspiracy theories etc. *feel* that Wikipedians are *maliciously* preventing their side from being represented in Wikipedia etc. – often, unjustifiedly so.
Or think about the current situation in Russia and Ukraine, where people are subject to different media narratives, depending on where they live, and picture the world differently as a result. In both cases, this passage seems apt to encourage people to argue over *who is malicious and who is gaslighting whom*, rather than talking about content quality and how to neutrally summarise sources.
There are perfectly good mechanisms now in all major projects for sanctioning editors that lie or misrepresent sources, without a "law" whose application requires attributing malice to one party, and which in the process criminalises and further personalises the commonplace process *of people trying to change each other's minds.*
As for the other point, whether Wikipedians are still allowed to talk about Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia or whether Wikipedia has now become "Fight Club" (as per the movie quote: “The first rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club. The second rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club.”) I think this point is rather too important to await clarification in eighteen months' time. I'd rather have it clarified now.
If even the authors of the UCoC don't know—or aren't prepared to say—what they meant, then God help us.
Regards, Andreas
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:54 PM Maggie Dennis mdennis@wikimedia.org wrote:
I have been working on the UCoC about as long as anybody, if not as intensely as some. Hence, I have some confidence in saying that it is the Foundation's role to shepherd the Movement Strategy recommendation to reality in creating a baseline of behavioral standards that are movement-wide. *I* have opinions about what is and is not good conduct and how conduct can and should be reinforced, but the Code of Conduct was not written to reflect *my* opinions *or* the Foundation's - the drafting committee was a disparate group working to incorporate the feedback of volunteers and staff from all across the movement.
The questions you raise strike me as very good discussion good points for the planned future policy review. Policies run into gray areas unless they are so generic as to be toothless. We will occasionally have hard conversations in application when we discover unintended or negative consequences. This is not a new challenge to the movement. I think it's one of the things Wikimedia does rather well.
In terms of "in good faith" and "is malicious" - my understanding of malice from both a linguistic and legal sense is that it includes the *intent* to do harm. Beyond that, while your question "How can they be prevented from inserting erroneous material without causing them to doubt their own perceptions etc. in a way that they may well – in good faith – is malicious?" - seems to have lost a verb or two perhaps, I think what you are asking is how people can be prevented from inserting material without maliciously causing them to doubt their own perceptions: [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]] do not require malice in calling for consensus-defined reliable sources and avoiding fringe material. That said, again, this strikes me as a discussion for the future policy review, and if actual issues arise in the meantime I have no doubt discussion will happen.
Best, Maggie
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:47 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Maggie,
Could I ask you for help with a couple of things:
- The UCoC states that "sharing information concerning other
contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects" is harassment. Is it really the WMF's intention to prohibit public discussions of controversial editing? To give some examples, in the past English Wikipedia arbitrators commented on cases like the Scientology case or the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (Wifione) case in the press. Following the letter of the UCoC, they would no longer be allowed to do so. Even articles like https://www.cnet.com/science/features/wikipedia-is-at-war-over-the-coronavir... fall foul of the letter of the UCoC as written today, with every Wikipedian involved in it guilty of harassment, per the UCoC. Is it really your intention to prevent volunteers from discussing anyone's Wikipedia activity outside the project? And if it isn't – could you help us prevail upon your colleagues in the WMF board and the drafting committee to just fix the sentence and have it unambiguously say what they really mean?
- The UCoC states that the following is harassment: "Psychological
manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want." We have, and always have had, and always will have, users with sincerely and passionately held fringe beliefs about matters of science, politics, religion, etc., as well as users lacking basic compentency in the subject area or language they choose to work in. How can they be prevented from inserting erroneous material without causing them to doubt their own perceptions etc. in a way that they may well – in good faith – is malicious?
Andreas
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:02 PM Maggie Dennis mdennis@wikimedia.org wrote:
Let me clarify a few points.
- The vote was intended to surface what concerns might exist more
broadly in the international communities, not all of whom engage in Meta discussions. Staff were neither asked to convince people to vote for the enforcement guidelines as written nor even encouraged to. They are not held to account for the speed with which the Guidelines are approved nor for the language within it. It is their job to facilitate.
- The vote threshold is the point at which it is ready to engage
the Board for their further directions. We expect to see issues coalescing in a way to help funnel attention to them to provide input internationally, in multilingual facilitated review.
- The intention is indeed that if major issues have been identified
in the enforcement guidelines, they will go back to a vote, again and again, until there is a version that is workable, with a period before each vote for evaluating issues and addressing them.
- The UCoC drafters have been international volunteers with
experience working on Wikimedia projects from multiple angles and multiple languages. They do not all agree on every line as written and have worked very hard to come up with a document that can be tested and refined until it is ready to be put into use.
It is true that the policy and guideline are not open to editing in the same way that some local community policies are. Like the Terms of Use itself and the Privacy Policy, neither of which are open to edits, it is a document that will have formal methods for modification. In the case of the UCoC, the plan is to review it (policy and enforcement guideline) on an annual basis to see what is working and what is not, with an understanding that behavioral policies can work in unexpected ways and have unexpected outcomes and even that what people understand to be acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior evolves over time.
Best, Maggie
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:10 AM Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
Our conduct policies were carefully crafted by hundreds of brilliant people over the course of twenty years, building upon endless experience and detailed discussions that could fill books upon books.
The UCoC Project ... seems to be built to supersede all that we've built in this area, with an extremely inadequate replacement. It apparently abandoned the idea of being a "minimal baseline" in favor of including every preferred (and even aspirational) point available. The Enforcement Guidelines thoroughly place the UCoC itself front-and-center, requiring extensive linking and pushing it to be read by everyone (we have a hard enough time getting people to read the existing conduct policies; making everything link to UCoC will definitely drastically reduce the reach of existing policies if not eliminate their presence outright), mandatory pledges/affirmations of the UCoC and compulsory UCoC training (both as prerequisites to sysop participation, conditions which will likely strip the ranks).
The UCoC is a text that the community did not write. It remains filled with dozens of very serious issues, but volunteers were never invited to edit it. Basic attempts at even cleaning up the document's language were reverted, as the staff are quite clear that it is not a Wikimedia document that community efforts may be directly part of. Larger issues were ignored. Even if we were to grant the idea that we would centralize conduct policies and remove local variation in acceptable practices, it looks to me that this attempt at producing a viable policy did not work. The WMF appointees who wrote the UCoC, while they surely worked hard on the document over the few months given to write the text, were quite reasonably not capable of doing the kind of work we typically expect from the large numbers of experienced volunteers who build core policies over the course of a much longer time period.
Even taking into account the WMF's extensive campaign to convince people that the UCoC was good (and to vote accordingly), and their admission that they intended to keep pushing the UCoC indefinitely until a vote passed in the direction they wanted, I am surprised and dismayed at the result of the vote. The 57% support outcome (or 58.6% if one discounts neutral votes, as is often the practice), while well below the amount typically needed to establish consensus for a policy, is above the threshold the WMF determined to use for their own purposes.
I don't know where we can go from here, or what the Board will do with this situation. Numerous contributors have already pointed out that these numbers fall clearly under "no consensus". The staff seem to have realized that removing sysop tools from a large portion of the admin corps as required would be disastrous. One of the more egregious problems present in the UCoC text is already likely to be the subject of review following an open letter by a user group, though many, many others remain largely unconsidered. Local community preparatory work for dealing with possible WMF action is ... roughly what I would expect (including the commitments to not cooperate with UCoC efforts, or to implement them).
This is a pretty bad situation.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ג׳, 5 באפר׳ 2022 ב-17:32 מאת Stella Ng < sng@wikimedia.org>:
Hello All,
We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians 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. At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are automatically complete.
From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the voter’s responses.
In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.
Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways over the last year.
Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the Enforcement Guidelines.
Regards,
Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team
Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Maggie Dennis She/her/hers Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Maggie Dennis She/her/hers Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org