Hello,
This topic has been in the back of my mind for awhile. Occasionally it comes up in conversations, and it has been discussed as part of the 2030 strategy process (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20). I have a few early thoughts that I'd like to share.
I think that a global code of conduct, and a way to enforce it, could be good in some limited but important circumstances:
(1) Where the governance of a Wikimedia project or another WMF conduct review organization has allegedly been compromised so extensively that removal of all of its administrators, functionaries, and/or other authorities should be considered for the purpose of providing a relatively "clean start" for reforming the affected domain's governance, or a domain is allegedly becoming so anarchic that peacekeeping from outsiders is necessary to restore order.
In none of these cases am I suggesting that outsiders should attempt to get involved in content disputes or allegations of misconduct by a small proportion of a site's administrators or functionaries.
By default, a global code of conduct committee should assume good faith regarding local consensus and/or the actions of a local arbitration committee, if they exist, and a global code of conduct committee should by default assume that any local consensus decisions and the decisions of a local arbitration committee are legitimate. These default positions may be changed if there is significant evidence suggesting that there should be a review of the situation by outsiders.
(2) Where a steward, global sysop, Meta administrator, or other person in a similarly "meta" online position has allegedly misused their position, and other options have been exhausted or would involve publicly revealing evidence for which there is a very strong reason for privacy.
(3) Where the current Ombudsman Commission (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission) has found fault with actions that are under its authority to review and recommends that individuals be sanctioned.
(4) In the circumstances where, presently, WMF asserts a global ban.
I would oppose the use of a global code of conduct or a global code of conduct committee for:
(1) disputes which focus on one or a relatively small number of individuals. A global code of conduct committee could easily be overwhelmed by the number of cases, and I think that local administrators and functionaries who have good knowledge of a project's policies, guidelines, and language(s) are best placed to address these disputes.
(2) content disputes.
(3) functioning as a thin layer of cover for WMF-driven actions or acting as an extension of WMF.
(4) silencing debates or unwelcome opinions for the purpose of making people feel safe. The Internet is not a safe place, and no amount of heavy policing will effectively guarantee safety on a large scale. Also, heavy policing can have the effects of stifling uncomfortable debates and providing cover for incompetence and corruption. This is not to say that we should accept people trying to bully newcomers or publish political propaganda on content pages, but I think that these issues are best resolved locally and the norms for them are best created locally. In some cases, problems with content may be resolved as a secondary effect of resolving problems with conduct.
Thoughts?
Ever onward,
I'm certainly not a big proponent of a global code of conduct (especially after the Fram disaster), but if there is to be one, I could actually see one like this being useful. We have had instances in the past where smaller projects had an admin corps that abused their tools to preserve content that violated NPOV and boot off those who objected, and in such an instance outside intervention may be necessary. (Of course, we'd also need to ensure that such complaints aren't just sour grapes from editors who failed to gain a consensus in a content dispute.)
Todd
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:43 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
This topic has been in the back of my mind for awhile. Occasionally it comes up in conversations, and it has been discussed as part of the 2030 strategy process (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20). I have a few early thoughts that I'd like to share.
I think that a global code of conduct, and a way to enforce it, could be good in some limited but important circumstances:
(1) Where the governance of a Wikimedia project or another WMF conduct review organization has allegedly been compromised so extensively that removal of all of its administrators, functionaries, and/or other authorities should be considered for the purpose of providing a relatively "clean start" for reforming the affected domain's governance, or a domain is allegedly becoming so anarchic that peacekeeping from outsiders is necessary to restore order.
In none of these cases am I suggesting that outsiders should attempt to get involved in content disputes or allegations of misconduct by a small proportion of a site's administrators or functionaries.
By default, a global code of conduct committee should assume good faith regarding local consensus and/or the actions of a local arbitration committee, if they exist, and a global code of conduct committee should by default assume that any local consensus decisions and the decisions of a local arbitration committee are legitimate. These default positions may be changed if there is significant evidence suggesting that there should be a review of the situation by outsiders.
(2) Where a steward, global sysop, Meta administrator, or other person in a similarly "meta" online position has allegedly misused their position, and other options have been exhausted or would involve publicly revealing evidence for which there is a very strong reason for privacy.
(3) Where the current Ombudsman Commission (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission) has found fault with actions that are under its authority to review and recommends that individuals be sanctioned.
(4) In the circumstances where, presently, WMF asserts a global ban.
I would oppose the use of a global code of conduct or a global code of conduct committee for:
(1) disputes which focus on one or a relatively small number of individuals. A global code of conduct committee could easily be overwhelmed by the number of cases, and I think that local administrators and functionaries who have good knowledge of a project's policies, guidelines, and language(s) are best placed to address these disputes.
(2) content disputes.
(3) functioning as a thin layer of cover for WMF-driven actions or acting as an extension of WMF.
(4) silencing debates or unwelcome opinions for the purpose of making people feel safe. The Internet is not a safe place, and no amount of heavy policing will effectively guarantee safety on a large scale. Also, heavy policing can have the effects of stifling uncomfortable debates and providing cover for incompetence and corruption. This is not to say that we should accept people trying to bully newcomers or publish political propaganda on content pages, but I think that these issues are best resolved locally and the norms for them are best created locally. In some cases, problems with content may be resolved as a secondary effect of resolving problems with conduct.
Thoughts?
Ever onward,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello,
I have published a draft proposal at the bottom of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct. Discussion is welcome.
A difficult issue is how to support diversity of expressions and opinions, even when those expressions or opinions may offend others, while also supporting civility. At this point, I think that civility policies are best left to local communities. However, I welcome others' opinions, including alternate proposals.
Hi Pine,
I don't think a global commitee would be the right place - stewards are currently filling this gap involuntarily, and it seems extremely difficult to judge situations on a local project properly (the Azerbaijani case might come to mind here).
For me the ideal version of a universal CoC would limit itself to a very basic foundation, which would then be adapted and developed on a regional and local level to better fit the needs of the various communities, as you mention above, including local laws that may prohibit certain behaviour (as is the case in Germany and Austria with any glorification of nationalsocialism for example). The global council would also arbitrate in certain conflicts that happen between regions or projects, but this is more of a theoretical experiment right now I think.
Best, Philip
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 04:37, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I have published a draft proposal at the bottom of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct. Discussion is welcome.
A difficult issue is how to support diversity of expressions and opinions, even when those expressions or opinions may offend others, while also supporting civility. At this point, I think that civility policies are best left to local communities. However, I welcome others' opinions, including alternate proposals.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Kaya
When we look at number we to interpret them in ways that the numbers themselves don't.
Think about this 40% that think the the policies need 'quite a bit of improvement' but that doesnt tell us if it because the policy failed to protect them. More importantly it also doesn't say if was the way the policy was interpreted or applied or if the community just failed to uphold the policy because one party was being protected. We can all bring instances of where policy fails or where policy is use as means of asserting power to the table, en wikipedia's arbcom is littered with decisions arising from such disputes.
How could 7 people sit in judgement over thousands of cultural norms and practices spread across 300 plus languages and really make any honest assessment of what took place, why , or the understandings. How could someone who lives Iceland understand the cultural differences in a place like India and understand all that is taking place. Could someone in India who lives those experiences even understand the intricacies of every language, religion, and caste that makes up the society even do it without bringing their own bias to the fore. I'm in Australia where we have 300+ plus unique cultures and languages one of the most difficult things is to unpack is the cultural bias of there being a mono-generic "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Culture" even on Wikipedia we speak mostly in mono-generic tone because its a bias that runs through the sources.
The GCC would need to be significantly bigger in number to ensure diversity, it'd need an even larger number of trusted interpreters even then one word that doesnt translate well could change the whole outcome. Yes our policies arent perfect but its them and way they are interpreted at community level that needs the work, not from some small privileged group sitting up high judgement.
We need our affiliates to be give the resource to run training session and workshops for admins on how policies should work, we need to address the wikilawyers and pendants who revel in the meaning of a single word rather than the spirit of its intention.
Even if we were to get it absolutely right with the first 7 people, we know that people with agendas are attracted to and will eventually force their way on such committees and remodel it in their own vision. Honestly we need to stop building castles and anointing kings instead focus on making more room in the fields so everything can grow.
Boodar-wun
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 01:40, Philip Kopetzky philip.kopetzky@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pine,
I don't think a global commitee would be the right place - stewards are currently filling this gap involuntarily, and it seems extremely difficult to judge situations on a local project properly (the Azerbaijani case might come to mind here).
For me the ideal version of a universal CoC would limit itself to a very basic foundation, which would then be adapted and developed on a regional and local level to better fit the needs of the various communities, as you mention above, including local laws that may prohibit certain behaviour (as is the case in Germany and Austria with any glorification of nationalsocialism for example). The global council would also arbitrate in certain conflicts that happen between regions or projects, but this is more of a theoretical experiment right now I think.
Best, Philip
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 04:37, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I have published a draft proposal at the bottom of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct. Discussion is welcome.
A difficult issue is how to support diversity of expressions and opinions, even when those expressions or opinions may offend others, while also supporting civility. At this point, I think that civility policies are best left to local communities. However, I welcome others' opinions, including alternate proposals.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
Thanks for the comments here. I'm busy with off-wiki activities today and can't respond with as much specificity as I would wish. I request that you copy these comments to the talk page on Meta for discussion there.
Please keep in mind that this process is in the early stages. There are probably months of discussions ahead regarding this and any alternative proposals, and it is possible that in the end nothing will change, but I think that there could be some benefits from my draft proposal or one that is similar to it.
I'm aware that positions of power often attract the wrong kinds of people, and I'm interested in proposals for how to make it likely that any people who end up in power will have a public service mindset, not be authoritarian or power-hungry, and will be competent.
Thanks,
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 21:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, This topic has been in the back of my mind for awhile.
Your proposal was thought-provoking. I was about to share my thoughts on it for a long time:
First, I think there are 3 aspects to the discussion on the CoC: 1. The values and standards defined in the CoC: policy making. 2. Establishing those standards in the community: education. 3. Ensuring those standards are upheld: enforcement.
These have very different considerations and challenges, therefore it's important to distinguish. I saw in the community feedback that 1. and 3. (definition and enforcement) are discussed intermixed. Most notably I've seen many reactions worried about how enforcement (3) will be done, finding fault in the idea of having a CoC (1).
Furthermore, I haven't seen education (2) being discussed, although I believe that part is necessary to prevent issues escalating to enforcement. For ex. if we take a look at the first five points of the Contributor Covenant https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/0/code_of_conduct/ :
- Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people - Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences - Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback - Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our mistakes, and learning from the experience - Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall community
These are values we strive for, therefore I would include in a CoC. These are not to be enforced, it would be ridiculous to ban an editor for not being empathetic, but it's an important declaration of values to aim for. To make these values a reality I believe the key is education, showing an example and rewarding such behavior.
I reckon your proposal discusses the 3rd aspect: enforcement. That comes into effect when the opposite of the above values is experienced, such as hostility. My thought on your points:
I think that a global code of conduct, and a way to enforce it, could
be good in some limited but important circumstances:
(1) Where the governance of a Wikimedia project or another WMF conduct review organization has allegedly been compromised so extensively that removal of all of its administrators, functionaries, and/or other authorities should be considered for the purpose of providing a relatively "clean start" for reforming the affected domain's governance, or a domain is allegedly becoming so anarchic that peacekeeping from outsiders is necessary to restore order.
That would be a very beneficial application. The "clean start" requires criterions or some form of an election for choosing new admins or functionaries. That's worth a separate topic in itself.
... I think that local administrators and functionaries who have good knowledge of a project's policies, guidelines, and language(s) are best placed to address these disputes.
In a scalable dispute resolution system with well-defined paths of escalation local admins then functionaries would be part of that path.
(4) silencing debates or unwelcome opinions for the purpose of making
people feel safe.
This is a valid concern, in my opinion observable in how the Technical Code of Conduct committee interprets the CoC and deals with feedback about development mistakes and decisions that startled the community. There are a few editors, who weren't careful enough when expressing their disappointment - mostly about Flow and VE - and received a temporary or permanent ban in response.
I've also observed this very regularly in disputes on the big wikis (not just enwiki). I think this is one of the major reasons for editors leaving and it will be difficult to address this issue. I believe the high stakes of blocking makes the threat of blocking (usually implied, not explicit) a strong tool in silencing debates. As blocks are very difficult to apply to editors, whose work is highly valued, that threat usually affects one side in a dispute, thus becoming discouraging from open debate. This shortcoming of the original blocking model predetermines the outcome of many debates, when one side is practically exempt from the conduct policies. These stakes were somewhat reduced by the introduction of partial blocks, which reduces the severity of sanctions and might even be applied to editors, who would have been considered unblockables.
To avoid use of bans as a silencing tool, a similar refined approach needs to be taken with CoC enforcement as well. The focus should be on resolving disputes and - only if necessary - applying the minimal effective sanction. Bans should be the very last resort, only after a number of smaller sanctions failed. These escalation models can be well defined, detailing the possible breadth and length of sanctions.
In comparison, the length and severity of blocks is now at the discretion of administrators without limitations, allowing overzealous blocks.
The Internet is not a safe place, and no amount of heavy policing will effectively guarantee safety on a large scale. Also, heavy policing can have the effects of stifling uncomfortable debates and providing cover for incompetence and corruption.
Yes, that's part of the reality of any governing structure. "Checks and balances" are the way to counter and minimize the use of privileges in ways that benefit individuals, not to the community. Transparency and diverse committees (the members motivations and biases are different - balance), accountability, regular review (checks) are the models to be applied. Furthermore, cases should be evaluated by a committee that's most independent from the involved parties. This necessitates having more committees, for ex. enwiki ArbCom could be one. Collaboration between committees should be an option too.
This is
not to say that we should accept people trying to bully newcomers or publish political propaganda on content pages, but I think that these issues are best resolved locally and the norms for them are best created locally. In some cases, problems with content may be resolved as a secondary effect of resolving problems with conduct.
We are at a point of discussing these issues movement-wide, because these were not resolved locally. To handle CoC reports, the old structures need to be revitalized and new structures created with the involvement of trained personnel. These would improve and extend the current local processes, not replace those.
The above are personal opinions. Thank you for reading.
Aron
Hoi, To help you remember, we had such situations in the past, they were resolved. It was ultimately the language committee who stopped Wikipedias. Background it is this same language committee who is instrumental in starting new projects.
On a different topic. Diversity and bias is very much topical at this time. At the same time we, the Wikimedia Foundation (org and movement) are in a position to diminish the bias against all the other languages. A first iteration of Special:MediaSearch [1] is available on Commons. It allows you to find a cat in Amharic or Chinese, Korean, Kannada, Kiswahili and Dutch. It is the first iteration of the official multi lingual search support of the WMF. It can be localised. With a bit of effort it becomes available on all of our projects.
What it takes to make Commons usable; * access of everyone to this search functionality * localisation at translatewiki.net * labels in commons * pictures that are to are know depict
The most important thing that will make this happen; is recognition that this requires commitment, it is considered that it is the primary objective it is (motto: "All of @WikiCommons is available to every single person on the planet"). It is important to understand that with finite resources, your hobby horse may take a backseat. You should embrace it because "other languages" matter.
PS oh yes, and it works best in English anyway. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap&q=pak...
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap&q=pak...
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 21:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
This topic has been in the back of my mind for awhile. Occasionally it comes up in conversations, and it has been discussed as part of the 2030 strategy process (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20). I have a few early thoughts that I'd like to share.
I think that a global code of conduct, and a way to enforce it, could be good in some limited but important circumstances:
(1) Where the governance of a Wikimedia project or another WMF conduct review organization has allegedly been compromised so extensively that removal of all of its administrators, functionaries, and/or other authorities should be considered for the purpose of providing a relatively "clean start" for reforming the affected domain's governance, or a domain is allegedly becoming so anarchic that peacekeeping from outsiders is necessary to restore order.
In none of these cases am I suggesting that outsiders should attempt to get involved in content disputes or allegations of misconduct by a small proportion of a site's administrators or functionaries.
By default, a global code of conduct committee should assume good faith regarding local consensus and/or the actions of a local arbitration committee, if they exist, and a global code of conduct committee should by default assume that any local consensus decisions and the decisions of a local arbitration committee are legitimate. These default positions may be changed if there is significant evidence suggesting that there should be a review of the situation by outsiders.
(2) Where a steward, global sysop, Meta administrator, or other person in a similarly "meta" online position has allegedly misused their position, and other options have been exhausted or would involve publicly revealing evidence for which there is a very strong reason for privacy.
(3) Where the current Ombudsman Commission (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission) has found fault with actions that are under its authority to review and recommends that individuals be sanctioned.
(4) In the circumstances where, presently, WMF asserts a global ban.
I would oppose the use of a global code of conduct or a global code of conduct committee for:
(1) disputes which focus on one or a relatively small number of individuals. A global code of conduct committee could easily be overwhelmed by the number of cases, and I think that local administrators and functionaries who have good knowledge of a project's policies, guidelines, and language(s) are best placed to address these disputes.
(2) content disputes.
(3) functioning as a thin layer of cover for WMF-driven actions or acting as an extension of WMF.
(4) silencing debates or unwelcome opinions for the purpose of making people feel safe. The Internet is not a safe place, and no amount of heavy policing will effectively guarantee safety on a large scale. Also, heavy policing can have the effects of stifling uncomfortable debates and providing cover for incompetence and corruption. This is not to say that we should accept people trying to bully newcomers or publish political propaganda on content pages, but I think that these issues are best resolved locally and the norms for them are best created locally. In some cases, problems with content may be resolved as a secondary effect of resolving problems with conduct.
Thoughts?
Ever onward,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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