Hello, everyone.
We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces, for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October 6, 2020.
The UCoC Drafting Committee https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committeewants to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or your work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could be improved?
Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with translations so far.
Please join the conversation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and the FAQ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ, on Meta.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
Hoi, I do not like the text. You first state a problem that the policy is to address. By flipping the order it becomes instantly more positive. The objective is to instill the notion what normal behaviour is and that sadly we have to insist on normal behaviour. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 22:18, Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone.
We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
,
for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October 6, 2020.
The UCoC Drafting Committee < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
wants
to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or your work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could be improved?
Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with translations so far.
Please join the conversation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and the FAQ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ, on Meta.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
-- Patrick Earley Policy Manager, Trust and Safety Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. Doubly so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken over the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process when it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to use every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone.
We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
,
for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October 6, 2020.
The UCoC Drafting Committee < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
wants
to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or your work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could be improved?
Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with translations so far.
Please join the conversation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and the FAQ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ, on Meta.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
-- Patrick Earley Policy Manager, Trust and Safety Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or WMF as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything that looks like an "imposition"
The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing policy or guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any Wikimedia project.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. Doubly so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken over the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process when it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to use every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone.
We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
,
for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October
6,
The UCoC Drafting Committee <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
wants
to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or
your
work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could
be
improved?
Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with
translations
so far.
Please join the conversation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and the FAQ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ, on
Meta.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
-- Patrick Earley Policy Manager, Trust and Safety Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to get a $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion on proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings is about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its flatulence to itself.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or WMF as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything that looks like an "imposition"
The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing policy or guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any Wikimedia project.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. Doubly so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken
over
the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process
when
it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to use every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone.
We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
,
for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October
6,
The UCoC Drafting Committee <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
wants
to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or
your
work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could
be
improved?
Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with
translations
so far.
Please join the conversation <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review%3E
and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and the
FAQ
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ, on
Meta.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
-- Patrick Earley Policy Manager, Trust and Safety Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
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 Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better and more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings", you probably expected a different model where different language Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a UCoC.
The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft and if there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and support the drafting committee at this stage.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to get a $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion on proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings is about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its flatulence to itself.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or WMF as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything that looks like an "imposition"
The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing policy
or
guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
Wikimedia
project.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
Doubly
so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken
over
the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process
when
it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to
use
every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone.
We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which
the
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
,
for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
October
6,
The UCoC Drafting Committee <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
wants
to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or
your
work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what
could
be
improved?
Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with
translations
so far.
Please join the conversation <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review%3E
and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of
Conduct
page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and the
FAQ
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ, on
Meta.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
-- Patrick Earley Policy Manager, Trust and Safety Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
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 Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of a Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I can say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings about the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why we need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you share in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect on people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better and more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings", you probably expected a different model where different language Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a UCoC.
The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft and if there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and support the drafting committee at this stage.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion
on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
flatulence
to itself.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
WMF
as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
that
looks like an "imposition"
The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
policy
or
guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
Wikimedia
project.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
Doubly
so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
taken
over
the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
process
when
it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to
use
every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <pearley@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello, everyone.
We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which
the
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
,
for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
October
6,
The UCoC Drafting Committee <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
wants
to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you
or
your
work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what
could
be
improved?
Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with
translations
so far.
Please join the conversation <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
and share this email with others who may be interested to join,
too.
To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of
Conduct
page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and
the
FAQ
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ,
on
Meta.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
-- Patrick Earley Policy Manager, Trust and Safety Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
That's OK. I have much bigger platforms. My apologies for the ultra-offensive reference to...flatulence.
Best,
Dan
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:03 PM Jackie jackie.koerner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of a Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I can say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings about the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why we need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you share in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect on people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
and
more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
proceedings",
you probably expected a different model where different language Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a UCoC.
The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft and
if
there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and support the drafting committee at this stage.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
opinion
on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
flatulence
to itself.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
WMF
as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
that
looks like an "imposition"
The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
policy
or
guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
Wikimedia
project.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
Doubly
so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
arbitrarily
denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
taken
over
the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
process
when
it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
one.
The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities
to
use
every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <
pearley@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello, everyone.
We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
which
the
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this
year
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>, for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
October
6,
The UCoC Drafting Committee <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>wants to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for
you
or
your
work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what
could
be
improved?
Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with
translations
so far.
Please join the conversation <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
and share this email with others who may be interested to join,
too.
To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of
Conduct
page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and
the
FAQ
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ,
on
Meta.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
-- Patrick Earley Policy Manager, Trust and Safety Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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>
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
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
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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
Am I reading this correctly?
You were moderated for calling the UCoC flatulence?
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
On Sep 9, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
That's OK. I have much bigger platforms. My apologies for the ultra-offensive reference to...flatulence.
Best,
Dan
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:03 PM Jackie jackie.koerner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of a Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I can say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings about the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why we need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you share in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect on people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
and
more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
proceedings",
you probably expected a different model where different language Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a UCoC.
The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft and
if
there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and support the drafting committee at this stage.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
opinion
on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
flatulence
to itself.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
WMF
as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
that
looks like an "imposition"
The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
policy
or
guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
Wikimedia
project.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
Doubly
so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
arbitrarily
denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
taken
over
the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
process
when
it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
one.
The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities
to
use
every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <
pearley@wikimedia.org
wrote:
> Hello, everyone. > > We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
which
the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this
year
> < >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>> , > for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
October
6, > 2020. > > The UCoC Drafting Committee > < >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>> wants > to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for
you
or
your > work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what
could
be > improved? > > > Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with translations > so far. > > > Please join the conversation > <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> and share this email with others who may be interested to join,
too.
> > To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of
Conduct
> page > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and
the
FAQ
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ,
on
Meta. > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct > > [2] > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
> > [3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
> > -- > Patrick Earley > Policy Manager, Trust and Safety > Wikimedia Foundation > pearley@wikimedia.org > _______________________________________________ > 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>
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
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
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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
Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com:
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might theoretically be the case, at least partially? Kind regards Ziko
a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Please, enlighten me.
On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com:
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might theoretically be the case, at least partially? Kind regards Ziko
a.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
There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find that expression offensive and unacceptable.
Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was accepted as a norm)
The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
Anders
Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
Please, enlighten me.
On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com:
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might theoretically be the case, at least partially? Kind regards Ziko
a.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
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
Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable expressions, and how they are determined? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find that expression offensive and unacceptable.
Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was accepted as a norm)
The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
Anders
Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
Please, enlighten me.
On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com:
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might theoretically be the case, at least partially? Kind regards Ziko
a.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
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
No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no intention of maintaining a list.
We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the broader audience.
Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do without effort.
As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely to be heard.
A.
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable expressions, and how they are determined? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find that expression offensive and unacceptable.
Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was accepted as a norm)
The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
Anders
Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
Please, enlighten me.
On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com:
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might theoretically be the case, at least partially? Kind regards Ziko
a.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
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
-- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
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
In that case, can we please have an explanation of exactly how the relevant text was found to be inappropriate, as this is patently unclear, and apparently the reason for all this debate. I have my own speculation, but as it is speculation, it would be inappropriate to publicise unless there is no official explanation. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Asaf Bartov Sent: 11 September 2020 11:46 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no intention of maintaining a list.
We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the broader audience.
Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do without effort.
As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely to be heard.
A.
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable expressions, and how they are determined? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find that expression offensive and unacceptable.
Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was accepted as a norm)
The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
Anders
Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
Please, enlighten me.
On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com:
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do
I
have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might theoretically be the case, at least partially? Kind regards Ziko
a.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
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
-- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
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
Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable expressions, and how they are determined?
There were been several explanations already. It's possible to use mild words in a cruel way, for example a father telling their child "You've always had beans for brains." Editors are aware of this simple truth and any feigned outrage must be disingenuous.
It's interesting that I've voiced some extremely harsh criticism of the WMF, even suggesting that the editors form a union and sue for control of the Board, yet I've never once been moderated. Had my job threatened perhaps, but never blocked.
The point here is that petty hostility only achieves the goal of creating an unpleasant and unwelcoming environment. If you (speaking to the people here who are critical of the UCoC) want to make real change, please organize yourselves somewhere else, come up with a coherent argument, and present it here. The constant attrition of "why can't I say 'fart'?" is tiresome and dilutes any conversation of substance.
Kind regards, U:Adamw
There was no clear statement of "this is the problematic text and this is why it is considered unacceptable", which is a thing that I consider a reasonable expectation, as it is possible to learn from it, understand it, pass constructive criticism or agreement, and use as it a precedent for future expectations. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Adam Wight Sent: 11 September 2020 11:56 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable expressions, and how they are determined?
There were been several explanations already. It's possible to use mild words in a cruel way, for example a father telling their child "You've always had beans for brains." Editors are aware of this simple truth and any feigned outrage must be disingenuous.
It's interesting that I've voiced some extremely harsh criticism of the WMF, even suggesting that the editors form a union and sue for control of the Board, yet I've never once been moderated. Had my job threatened perhaps, but never blocked.
The point here is that petty hostility only achieves the goal of creating an unpleasant and unwelcoming environment. If you (speaking to the people here who are critical of the UCoC) want to make real change, please organize yourselves somewhere else, come up with a coherent argument, and present it here. The constant attrition of "why can't I say 'fart'?" is tiresome and dilutes any conversation of substance.
Kind regards, U:Adamw
_______________________________________________ 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
{{trigger warning : French joke included}}
Dear Pete, let me explain why this is problematic.
First I am sorry to say there is no hidden agenda or awful witchery plot to uncover including WMF influence. I have myself severely criticised the WMF in the course of the branding process (and was never scolded for that so I think we can express criticism). Maybe not all the time, maybe not just in any format.
I made the initial comment, and no one pushed me into. If it has offended people, I am sorry, maybe I should in effect have reached out to Dan privately first. Dan I am sorry of the attention, your wording is being given, and I would like us to move on, as suggested by Alphos to a more constructive debate.
Pete, because your are asking repeatedly for clarification and only because of that, what I have learned from my #black lives matter friends, it that s not my obligation to educate you on why this is problematic. In fact when you ask for clarifications, you are putting pressure on people who find the use of disrespectful language a problem instead of asking why the initial comment had to include flatulistic scenery (and this for French speakers has nothing to do with Brice de Nice’s expression « ça farte » see for reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhZ_kkVzx18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhZ_kkVzx18) which blurrs the actual meaning behind the criticisml, especially for people whose language is not English in the first place. Then one could argue that it is targeting people of an institution. Full stop.
I wish to move on to why I believe spaces should be moderated, which basically would mean enforcing a code of conduct, that many members of our community have been asking for for years.
« As I am a nice guy » I will give a few ressources explaining why I think lists, and wikimedia spaces should be moderated. Basically it is because you can :
1- allow free roaming speech and leaving agressive behaviours unchecked creating a space where only certain social groups are over represented but thus you can’t claim to be designing the sum of all human knowledge
OR
2 - design free open source inclusive spaces that are allowing anyone to participate but you then have to moderate content because, people have different « cultures" and may not understand what offends others, there is a learning curve.
Here is a timeline of incidents https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents#2018for https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents#2018for
This time line of incidents is often cited by women as a reason for having OS code of conducts (which includes moderation of mailing lists most of the time)
History tells us, that in the early internet days, the first experiments of virtual spaces encountered less harassment and more women. This is told in the following book : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35953464-broad-band https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35953464-broad-band, where the story of Stacy Horn and how she actually designed the Esat Coast Hanger (ECHO) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Horn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Horn is detailed. Why? Because Stacy Horn moderated each chan and reached out to every member that left the community so that she would eventually know about abusive behaviours and document it.
Designing a safe space does not mean you cannot address just any topic, it just means that you do so paying attention to how you treat potential readers, and contributors to create a discussion that is actually evolving around the subject, and not the format of it.
A 2018 incident about wether or not a joke should be removed https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/ https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/ questions wether there is a need for a safe space or not in open source projects. I’m taking this example, because it shows how power and privilege iin a community can be used to influence « keeping a joke that is upsetting to some ».
So the question of « censorship » is central, but it usually has a pending side : who is silenced, whose voice is not being heard? I like the way the Django FAQ adresses the problem of « censorship » in a community
https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/faq/ https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/faq/
Quote from the above : This is censorship! I have the right to say whatever I want
You do -- in your space. If you'd like to hang out in our spaces (as clarified above), we have some simple guidelines to follow. If you want to, for example, form a group where Django is discussed using language inappropriate for general channels then nobody's stopping you. We respect your right to establish whatever codes of conduct you want in the spaces that belong to you. Please honor this Code of Conduct in our spaces.
https://web.archive.org/web/20141109123859/http://speakup.io/coc.html https://web.archive.org/web/20141109123859/http://speakup.io/coc.html
Quote from the above :
It's important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one
If people do not know how to issue gracefully formulated criticism, we should have ressources to them to study, maybe even courses on non violent communication.
So I hope I have provided {{useful}} context and I will not answer anymore so that we can move on to something else.
Kind regards,
Nattes
Le 11 sept. 2020 à 13:29, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net a écrit :
There was no clear statement of "this is the problematic text and this is why it is considered unacceptable", which is a thing that I consider a reasonable expectation, as it is possible to learn from it, understand it, pass constructive criticism or agreement, and use as it a precedent for future expectations. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Adam Wight Sent: 11 September 2020 11:56 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable expressions, and how they are determined?
There were been several explanations already. It's possible to use mild words in a cruel way, for example a father telling their child "You've always had beans for brains." Editors are aware of this simple truth and any feigned outrage must be disingenuous.
It's interesting that I've voiced some extremely harsh criticism of the WMF, even suggesting that the editors form a union and sue for control of the Board, yet I've never once been moderated. Had my job threatened perhaps, but never blocked.
The point here is that petty hostility only achieves the goal of creating an unpleasant and unwelcoming environment. If you (speaking to the people here who are critical of the UCoC) want to make real change, please organize yourselves somewhere else, come up with a coherent argument, and present it here. The constant attrition of "why can't I say 'fart'?" is tiresome and dilutes any conversation of substance.
Kind regards, U:Adamw
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
-- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
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
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Please, enlighten me.
Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you see room for improvement or disagree with anything specific in it. This is a productive way to compare your personal understanding of civility against the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta page where the main discussion is happening.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com:
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might theoretically be the case, at least partially? Kind regards Ziko
Hello everyone,
What I want to read : comments on the UCoC. What I don't want to read : a barrage of *insert adjective, whether laudative or criticizing* reply after reply after reply after reply on the comments of one or more of the subscribers of this list.
I understand the initial comments shocked some of you, and some may want to defend freedom of expression and others yet criticize actions past or current by the Foundation, but still, I'd rather we'd compartmentalize and, instead of bickering about something the list mods have already given what seems to be a rather decent decision, talk about the Universal Code of Conduct, as I still haven't wrapped my head around it.
Please, no more back and forth, no more inanity, no more four mails an hour. Thank you…
Roger / Alphos
Le 11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org a écrit :
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Please, enlighten me.
Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you see room for improvement or disagree with anything specific in it. This is a productive way to compare your personal understanding of civility against the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta page where the main discussion is happening.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote: Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com:
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might theoretically be the case, at least partially? Kind regards Ziko
-- Quim Gil (he/him) Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks for the reply.
I took a look at it and found it terribly vague.
Depending on subjective interpretation, I can imagine it being used to justify whatever judgement is to be made.
I am no more enlightened.
On Sep 11, 2020, at 4:05 AM, Alphos OGame alphos.ogame@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
What I want to read : comments on the UCoC. What I don't want to read : a barrage of *insert adjective, whether laudative or criticizing* reply after reply after reply after reply on the comments of one or more of the subscribers of this list.
I understand the initial comments shocked some of you, and some may want to defend freedom of expression and others yet criticize actions past or current by the Foundation, but still, I'd rather we'd compartmentalize and, instead of bickering about something the list mods have already given what seems to be a rather decent decision, talk about the Universal Code of Conduct, as I still haven't wrapped my head around it.
Please, no more back and forth, no more inanity, no more four mails an hour. Thank you…
Roger / Alphos
Le 11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org a écrit :
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Please, enlighten me.
Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you see room for improvement or disagree with anything specific in it. This is a productive way to compare your personal understanding of civility against the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta page where the main discussion is happening.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote: Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com:
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might theoretically be the case, at least partially? Kind regards Ziko
-- Quim Gil (he/him) Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF _______________________________________________ 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
I would call this fair comment, and parallels can be drawn between how the UCoC may be used and the current discussion. Without clear statement on why a decision is made it cannot be properly understood, accepted or improved, and we end up in the usual spiral of speculation, accusation and bad feelings by all. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta Sent: 11 September 2020 13:16 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
Thanks for the reply.
I took a look at it and found it terribly vague.
Depending on subjective interpretation, I can imagine it being used to justify whatever judgement is to be made.
I am no more enlightened.
On Sep 11, 2020, at 4:05 AM, Alphos OGame alphos.ogame@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
What I want to read : comments on the UCoC. What I don't want to read : a barrage of *insert adjective, whether laudative or criticizing* reply after reply after reply after reply on the comments of one or more of the subscribers of this list.
I understand the initial comments shocked some of you, and some may want to defend freedom of expression and others yet criticize actions past or current by the Foundation, but still, I'd rather we'd compartmentalize and, instead of bickering about something the list mods have already given what seems to be a rather decent decision, talk about the Universal Code of Conduct, as I still haven't wrapped my head around it.
Please, no more back and forth, no more inanity, no more four mails an hour. Thank you…
Roger / Alphos
Le 11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org a écrit :
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Please, enlighten me.
Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you see room for improvement or disagree with anything specific in it. This is a productive way to compare your personal understanding of civility against the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta page where the main discussion is happening.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote: Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com:
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might theoretically be the case, at least partially? Kind regards Ziko
-- Quim Gil (he/him) Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June 2019 by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the strategy process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with wildly-misleading reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself was drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a process set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus against having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in setting ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board member and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every affiliate into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be demonstrating how far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are self-governing and will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for nonparticipation/noncooperation or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be the time for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level the Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work with them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of a Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I can say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings about the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why we need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you share in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect on people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
and
more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
proceedings",
you probably expected a different model where different language Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a UCoC.
The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft and
if
there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and support the drafting committee at this stage.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
opinion
on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
flatulence
to itself.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
WMF
as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
that
looks like an "imposition"
The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
policy
or
guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
Wikimedia
project.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
Doubly
so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
arbitrarily
denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
taken
over
the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
process
when
it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
one.
The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities
to
use
every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <
pearley@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello, everyone.
We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
which
the
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this
year
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>, for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
October
6,
The UCoC Drafting Committee <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>wants to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for
you
or
your
work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what
could
be
improved?
Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with
translations
so far.
Please join the conversation <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
and share this email with others who may be interested to join,
too.
To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of
Conduct
page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and
the
FAQ
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ,
on
Meta.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
-- Patrick Earley Policy Manager, Trust and Safety Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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>
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
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
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some other community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over what topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by the WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the program went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus. Trust and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as necessary to the future development of the movement. This process has been open for ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process but every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in new contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving advantages to those who have been around longer but that is not something that will be unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new person is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June 2019 by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the strategy process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with wildly-misleading reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself was drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a process set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus against having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in setting ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board member and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every affiliate into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be demonstrating how far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are self-governing and will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for nonparticipation/noncooperation or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be the time for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level the Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work with them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of
a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I
can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings
about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why
we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you
share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect
on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
and
more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
proceedings",
you probably expected a different model where different language Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have
a
UCoC.
The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft and
if
there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and support the drafting committee at this stage.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
opinion
on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the
proceedings
is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
flatulence
to itself.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board
or
WMF
as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
that
looks like an "imposition"
The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
policy
or
guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
Wikimedia
project.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above
without
community approval, participating in any way is ethically
unsound.
Doubly
so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
arbitrarily
denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of
the
community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
taken
over
the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
process
when
it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
one.
The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities
to
use
every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <
pearley@wikimedia.org
wrote:
> Hello, everyone. > > We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of
Conduct
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
which
the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this
year
> < >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
> >, > for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
October
6, > 2020. > > The UCoC Drafting Committee > < >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> >wants > to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for
you
or
your > work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and
what
could
be > improved? > > > Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with translations > so far. > > > Please join the conversation > <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> and share this email with others who may be interested to join,
too.
> > To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of
Conduct
> page > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
and
the
FAQ
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
,
on
Meta. > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct > > [2] > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
> > [3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
> > -- > Patrick Earley > Policy Manager, Trust and Safety > Wikimedia Foundation > pearley@wikimedia.org > _______________________________________________ > 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>
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
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
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write for many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they did not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take action because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code of conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions, and I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke about « wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are supposedly asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles and refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some other community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over what topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by the WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the program went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus. Trust and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as necessary to the future development of the movement. This process has been open for ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process but every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in new contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving advantages to those who have been around longer but that is not something that will be unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new person is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June 2019 by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the strategy process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with wildly-misleading reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself was drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a process set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus against having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in setting ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board member and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every affiliate into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be demonstrating how far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are self-governing and will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for nonparticipation/noncooperation or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be the time for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level the Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work with them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of
a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I
can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings
about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why
we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you
share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect
on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
and
more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
proceedings",
you probably expected a different model where different language Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have
a
UCoC.
The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft and
if
there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and support the drafting committee at this stage.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
opinion
on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the
proceedings
is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
flatulence
to itself.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board
or
WMF
as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
that
looks like an "imposition"
The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
policy
or
guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
Wikimedia
project.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above
without
> community approval, participating in any way is ethically
unsound.
Doubly
> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
arbitrarily
> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of
the
> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
taken
over > the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
process
when > it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
one.
> > The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities
to
use
> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <
pearley@wikimedia.org
> wrote: > >> Hello, everyone. >> >> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of
Conduct
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
which
the
>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this
year
>> < >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>> , >> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
October
> 6, >> 2020. >> >> The UCoC Drafting Committee >> < >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>> wants >> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for
you
or
> your >> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and
what
could
> be >> improved? >> >> >> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with > translations >> so far. >> >> >> Please join the conversation >> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> and share this email with others who may be interested to join,
too.
>> >> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of
Conduct
>> page >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
and
the
FAQ >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
,
on
> Meta. >> >> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >> >> [2] >> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>> >> [3] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>> >> -- >> Patrick Earley >> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >> Wikimedia Foundation >> pearley@wikimedia.org >> _______________________________________________ >> 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>
> _______________________________________________ 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
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
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last 18 months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing the failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the community? One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual* things that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected in the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle wording. If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a free information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app. *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless. *I'm* grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say in what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far bigger than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from being suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write for many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they did not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take action because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code of conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions, and I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke about « wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are supposedly asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles and refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some other community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over what topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus. Trust and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as necessary to the future development of the movement. This process has been open for ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process but every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving advantages to those who have been around longer but that is not something that will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the strategy process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself was drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus against having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in setting ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every affiliate into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level the Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation
of
a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I
can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I
am
glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings
about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why
we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you
share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the
UCoC
is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect
on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
and
more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
proceedings",
you probably expected a different model where different language Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have
a
UCoC.
The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft
and
if
there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help
and
support the drafting committee at this stage.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
opinion
on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the
proceedings
is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
flatulence
to itself.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board
or
WMF
> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement. > > I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
that
> looks like an "imposition" > > The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
policy
or > guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any Wikimedia > project. > > Regards > > Isaac > > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above
without
>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically
unsound.
Doubly >> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
arbitrarily
>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of
the
>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
taken
> over >> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
process
> when >> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
one.
>> >> The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities
to
use >> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >> >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <
pearley@wikimedia.org
>> wrote: >> >>> Hello, everyone. >>> >>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of
Conduct
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
which
the >>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this
year
>>> < >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>> , >>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October >> 6, >>> 2020. >>> >>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>> < >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>> wants >>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for
you
or
>> your >>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and
what
could >> be >>> improved? >>> >>> >>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >> translations >>> so far. >>> >>> >>> Please join the conversation >>> < >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to join,
too.
>>> >>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct >>> page >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
and
the
> FAQ >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
,
on
>> Meta. >>> >>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>> >>> [2] >>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>> >>> [3] >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>> [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>>> >>> -- >>> Patrick Earley >>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>> Wikimedia Foundation >>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
>> > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here. Your strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable.
As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with figurative language entirely.
A.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last 18 months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing the failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the community? One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual* things that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected in the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle wording. If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a free information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app. *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless. *I'm* grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say in what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far bigger than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from being suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write for many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they did not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code of conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke about « wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles and refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some other community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process
but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself
was
drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level the Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation
of
a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but
I
can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue.
It
doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups
of
people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I
am
glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings
about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason
why
we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you
share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the
UCoC
is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
and
more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
proceedings",
you probably expected a different model where different language Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to
have
a
UCoC.
The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft
and
if
there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help
and
support the drafting committee at this stage.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like
to
get a > $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
opinion
on > proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the
proceedings
is > about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its flatulence > to itself. > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
> wrote: > >> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board
or
WMF >> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>> >> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
that >> looks like an "imposition" >> >> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing policy > or >> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any > Wikimedia >> project. >> >> Regards >> >> Isaac >> >> >> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above
without
>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically
unsound.
> Doubly >>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
arbitrarily
>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of
the
>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken >> over >>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process >> when >>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
one.
>>> >>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities
to
> use >>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <
pearley@wikimedia.org
> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, everyone. >>>> >>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of
Conduct
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
which
> the >>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this
year
>>>> < >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>> , >>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until > October >>> 6, >>>> 2020. >>>> >>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>> < >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>> wants >>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for
you
or >>> your >>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and
what
> could >>> be >>>> improved? >>>> >>>> >>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >>> translations >>>> so far. >>>> >>>> >>>> Please join the conversation >>>> < >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> >>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too. >>>> >>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of > Conduct >>>> page >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
and
the >> FAQ >>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
,
on >>> Meta. >>>> >>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>> >>>> [3] >>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>> [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Patrick Earley >>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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>
>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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>
> _______________________________________________ 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>
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
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
I strongly disagree. There's no "reasonable person" standard in which anything I said would be found offensive. I'm frequently sought out by professors as a *mentor* for journalism students and we talk about issues such as this. I'm no shock jock.
If anything, this spell highlights one of the fundamental dangers with a UCoC that ought to be avoided. An information community that defines acceptable discourse by the most offended is one in which the principles are toothless, the growth anemic. Information, by its very essence, will offend many people. A group that comes to a screeching halt become someone compared the *actions* of an *organization* to flatulence in mild terms is a group that cannot but fail to be productive at any task beyond the blandest of triviality.
I should note that I have nothing in principle against a UCoC. My main philosophical disagreement is one being imposed, with the community that built and energized the movement being considered an inferior partner, and I'm using the word "partner" very optimistically. The basic reality is that community consultations have proven over the last year to have the same efficacy as consulting with the knife-bearer in an alley about the proper ownership of your wallet. A fart -- or even the scandalous further disclosure that Everybody Poops -- shouldn't derail from the basic issues at play involving the WMF's actions and its stunning lack of comity in this and similar situations.
I'll cut off this dreary logorrhea now, to return to pondering whether I should be amused or bemused about the whole affair. I never thought that the first time someone would try to wash my mouth out with soap would be when I was 42.
Cheers,
Dan
I just want to say while I agree IMO there's a growing disconnect in some parts of WMF with the communities but it's not happening here. In fact it's also the other way around. Some people in communities and some communities in general have been growing too disconnected from the framework they are working in. In the past two weeks I had to go head to head to two communities on my volunteer developer/sysadmin role and I had to explain no matter the consensus, you can't enable an extension that would bring down (literally) not just your wiki but also 900 other ones or ban IP editing which is widely considered against founding principles of Wikimedia.
Communities are self-governed but they have limits, you can't change the privacy policy and give admins access to IP, you can't change copyright policy or terms of use and I don't see any problem with adding one more framework to make sure we would have a healthier movement (Each community IMO should build on top of UCoC and won't just rely on it for conduct policies but this would be the least, the base, the foundation, ..., you get the idea). Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:45 AM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:
As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here. Your strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable.
As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with figurative language entirely.
A.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
the
failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
community?
One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
things
that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
in
the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
wording.
If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
free
information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app. *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
*I'm*
grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
in
what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
bigger
than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
being
suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
for
many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
did
not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
of
conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
about
« wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles
and
refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
the
strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some
other
community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run
by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process
but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring
in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash
between
them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com
wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself
was
drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be
the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level
the
Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely
implementation
of
a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC,
but
I
can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue.
It
doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many
groups
of
people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group
and I
am
glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your
feelings
about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason
why
we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest
you
share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss
the
UCoC
is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Dan, > > You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
and > more useful on the Draft talk page. > > That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings", > you probably expected a different model where different language > Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to
have
a
> UCoC. > > The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the
draft
and
if > there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest > improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to
help
and
> support the drafting committee at this stage. > > Regards > > Isaac > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really
like
to
> get a >> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion > on >> proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the
proceedings
> is >> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its > flatulence >> to itself. >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the
Board
or
> WMF >>> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>>> >>> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
> that >>> looks like an "imposition" >>> >>> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the
existing
> policy >> or >>> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any >> Wikimedia >>> project. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Isaac >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
> wrote: >>> >>>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above
without
>>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically
unsound.
>> Doubly >>>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily >>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of
the
>>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF
has
> taken >>> over >>>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative > process >>> when >>>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's
called
one. >>>> >>>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the
communities
to >> use >>>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org >> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, everyone. >>>>> >>>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of
Conduct
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which >> the >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>> , >>>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open
until
>> October >>>> 6, >>>>> 2020. >>>>> >>>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>>> wants >>>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you > or >>>> your >>>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and
what
>> could >>>> be >>>>> improved? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >>>> translations >>>>> so far. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please join the conversation >>>>> < >>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> >>>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to
join,
> too. >>>>> >>>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code
of
>> Conduct >>>>> page >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
and
> the >>> FAQ >>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
, > on >>>> Meta. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>> >>>>> [3] >>>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Patrick Earley >>>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
>> > _______________________________________________ > 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>
>
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
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
-- Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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
Are those things not already covered by the terms of use? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Amir Sarabadani Sent: 10 September 2020 13:22 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
I just want to say while I agree IMO there's a growing disconnect in some parts of WMF with the communities but it's not happening here. In fact it's also the other way around. Some people in communities and some communities in general have been growing too disconnected from the framework they are working in. In the past two weeks I had to go head to head to two communities on my volunteer developer/sysadmin role and I had to explain no matter the consensus, you can't enable an extension that would bring down (literally) not just your wiki but also 900 other ones or ban IP editing which is widely considered against founding principles of Wikimedia.
Communities are self-governed but they have limits, you can't change the privacy policy and give admins access to IP, you can't change copyright policy or terms of use and I don't see any problem with adding one more framework to make sure we would have a healthier movement (Each community IMO should build on top of UCoC and won't just rely on it for conduct policies but this would be the least, the base, the foundation, ..., you get the idea). Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:45 AM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:
As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here. Your strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable.
As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with figurative language entirely.
A.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
the
failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
community?
One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
things
that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
in
the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
wording.
If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
free
information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app. *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
*I'm*
grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
in
what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
bigger
than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
being
suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
for
many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
did
not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
of
conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
about
« wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles
and
refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
the
strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some
other
community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run
by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process
but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring
in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash
between
them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com
wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself
was
drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be
the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level
the
Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely
implementation
of
a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC,
but
I
can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue.
It
doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many
groups
of
people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group
and I
am
glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your
feelings
about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason
why
we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest
you
share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss
the
UCoC
is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Dan, > > You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
and > more useful on the Draft talk page. > > That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings", > you probably expected a different model where different language > Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to
have
a
> UCoC. > > The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the
draft
and
if > there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest > improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to
help
and
> support the drafting committee at this stage. > > Regards > > Isaac > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really
like
to
> get a >> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion > on >> proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the
proceedings
> is >> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its > flatulence >> to itself. >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the
Board
or
> WMF >>> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>>> >>> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
> that >>> looks like an "imposition" >>> >>> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the
existing
> policy >> or >>> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any >> Wikimedia >>> project. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Isaac >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
> wrote: >>> >>>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above
without
>>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically
unsound.
>> Doubly >>>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily >>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of
the
>>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF
has
> taken >>> over >>>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative > process >>> when >>>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's
called
one. >>>> >>>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the
communities
to >> use >>>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org >> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, everyone. >>>>> >>>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of
Conduct
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which >> the >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>> , >>>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open
until
>> October >>>> 6, >>>>> 2020. >>>>> >>>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>>> wants >>>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you > or >>>> your >>>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and
what
>> could >>>> be >>>>> improved? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >>>> translations >>>>> so far. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please join the conversation >>>>> < >>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> >>>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to
join,
> too. >>>>> >>>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code
of
>> Conduct >>>>> page >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
and
> the >>> FAQ >>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
, > on >>>> Meta. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>> >>>>> [3] >>>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Patrick Earley >>>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
>> > _______________________________________________ > 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>
>
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
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
-- Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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
Except, apparently, if someone says "fart". For godsakes, that's about the mildest of language you could ask for. I could use far stronger about this whole farce.
If the "UCoC" means that people can't say "fart" because someone might get their feewings hurted, then I've very well been right to strongly oppose it.
Todd
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:45 AM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:
As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here. Your strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable.
As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with figurative language entirely.
A.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
the
failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
community?
One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
things
that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
in
the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
wording.
If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
free
information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app. *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
*I'm*
grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
in
what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
bigger
than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
being
suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
for
many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
did
not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
of
conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
about
« wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles
and
refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
the
strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some
other
community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run
by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process
but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring
in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash
between
them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com
wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself
was
drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be
the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level
the
Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely
implementation
of
a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC,
but
I
can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue.
It
doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many
groups
of
people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group
and I
am
glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your
feelings
about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason
why
we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest
you
share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss
the
UCoC
is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Dan, > > You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
and > more useful on the Draft talk page. > > That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings", > you probably expected a different model where different language > Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to
have
a
> UCoC. > > The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the
draft
and
if > there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest > improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to
help
and
> support the drafting committee at this stage. > > Regards > > Isaac > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really
like
to
> get a >> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion > on >> proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the
proceedings
> is >> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its > flatulence >> to itself. >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the
Board
or
> WMF >>> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>>> >>> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
> that >>> looks like an "imposition" >>> >>> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the
existing
> policy >> or >>> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any >> Wikimedia >>> project. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Isaac >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
> wrote: >>> >>>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above
without
>>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically
unsound.
>> Doubly >>>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily >>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of
the
>>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF
has
> taken >>> over >>>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative > process >>> when >>>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's
called
one. >>>> >>>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the
communities
to >> use >>>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org >> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, everyone. >>>>> >>>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of
Conduct
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which >> the >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>> , >>>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open
until
>> October >>>> 6, >>>>> 2020. >>>>> >>>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>>> wants >>>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you > or >>>> your >>>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and
what
>> could >>>> be >>>>> improved? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >>>> translations >>>>> so far. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please join the conversation >>>>> < >>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> >>>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to
join,
> too. >>>>> >>>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code
of
>> Conduct >>>>> page >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
and
> the >>> FAQ >>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
, > on >>>> Meta. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>> >>>>> [3] >>>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Patrick Earley >>>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
>> > _______________________________________________ > 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>
>
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
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
-- Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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
It is not yet clear that the use of the words "fart" or "flatulence" are the actual issue. Context matters, but we do not know the full context yet, as the reasons have not been explained, leaving us with little option but to speculate. We are experiencing a failure of communication as much, or more, than a failure of civility. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Todd Allen Sent: 11 September 2020 09:14 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
Except, apparently, if someone says "fart". For godsakes, that's about the mildest of language you could ask for. I could use far stronger about this whole farce.
If the "UCoC" means that people can't say "fart" because someone might get their feewings hurted, then I've very well been right to strongly oppose it.
Todd
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:45 AM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:
As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here. Your strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable.
As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with figurative language entirely.
A.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
the
failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
community?
One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
things
that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
in
the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
wording.
If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
free
information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app. *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
*I'm*
grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
in
what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
bigger
than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
being
suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
for
many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
did
not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
of
conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
about
« wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles
and
refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
the
strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some
other
community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run
by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process
but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring
in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash
between
them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com
wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself
was
drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be
the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level
the
Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely
implementation
of
a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC,
but
I
can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue.
It
doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many
groups
of
people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group
and I
am
glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your
feelings
about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason
why
we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest
you
share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss
the
UCoC
is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Dan, > > You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
and > more useful on the Draft talk page. > > That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings", > you probably expected a different model where different language > Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to
have
a
> UCoC. > > The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the
draft
and
if > there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest > improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to
help
and
> support the drafting committee at this stage. > > Regards > > Isaac > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really
like
to
> get a >> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion > on >> proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the
proceedings
> is >> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its > flatulence >> to itself. >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the
Board
or
> WMF >>> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>>> >>> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
> that >>> looks like an "imposition" >>> >>> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the
existing
> policy >> or >>> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any >> Wikimedia >>> project. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Isaac >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
> wrote: >>> >>>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above
without
>>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically
unsound.
>> Doubly >>>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily >>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of
the
>>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF
has
> taken >>> over >>>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative > process >>> when >>>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's
called
one. >>>> >>>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the
communities
to >> use >>>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org >> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, everyone. >>>>> >>>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of
Conduct
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which >> the >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>> , >>>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open
until
>> October >>>> 6, >>>>> 2020. >>>>> >>>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>>> wants >>>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you > or >>>> your >>>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and
what
>> could >>>> be >>>>> improved? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >>>> translations >>>>> so far. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please join the conversation >>>>> < >>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> >>>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to
join,
> too. >>>>> >>>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code
of
>> Conduct >>>>> page >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
and
> the >>> FAQ >>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
, > on >>>> Meta. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>> >>>>> [3] >>>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Patrick Earley >>>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
>> > _______________________________________________ > 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>
>
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
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
-- Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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
Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception. Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last 18 months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing the failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the community? One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual* things that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected in the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle wording. If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a free information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app. *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless. *I'm* grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say in what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far bigger than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from being suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write for many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they did not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code of conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke about « wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles and refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some other community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process
but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself
was
drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level the Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation
of
a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but
I
can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue.
It
doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups
of
people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I
am
glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings
about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason
why
we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you
share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the
UCoC
is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
and
more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
proceedings",
you probably expected a different model where different language Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to
have
a
UCoC.
The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft
and
if
there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help
and
support the drafting committee at this stage.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like
to
get a > $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
opinion
on > proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the
proceedings
is > about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its flatulence > to itself. > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
> wrote: > >> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board
or
WMF >> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>> >> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
that >> looks like an "imposition" >> >> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing policy > or >> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any > Wikimedia >> project. >> >> Regards >> >> Isaac >> >> >> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above
without
>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically
unsound.
> Doubly >>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
arbitrarily
>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of
the
>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken >> over >>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process >> when >>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
one.
>>> >>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities
to
> use >>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <
pearley@wikimedia.org
> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, everyone. >>>> >>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of
Conduct
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
which
> the >>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this
year
>>>> < >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>> , >>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until > October >>> 6, >>>> 2020. >>>> >>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>> < >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>> wants >>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for
you
or >>> your >>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and
what
> could >>> be >>>> improved? >>>> >>>> >>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >>> translations >>>> so far. >>>> >>>> >>>> Please join the conversation >>>> < >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> >>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too. >>>> >>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of > Conduct >>>> page >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
and
the >> FAQ >>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
,
on >>> Meta. >>>> >>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>> >>>> [3] >>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>> [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Patrick Earley >>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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>
>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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>
> _______________________________________________ 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>
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
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
Dan,
I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling from your email because I have *never* written this word in any correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower people in the free knowledge movement.
This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and covered by a Code of Conduct.
In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and upset about the result.
Best,
Jackie
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon josephseddon@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception. Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
the
failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
community?
One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
things
that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
in
the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
wording.
If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
free
information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app. *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
*I'm*
grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
in
what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
bigger
than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
being
suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
for
many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
did
not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
of
conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
about
« wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles
and
refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
the
strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some
other
community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run
by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process
but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring
in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash
between
them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com
wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself
was
drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be
the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level
the
Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely
implementation
of
a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC,
but
I
can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue.
It
doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many
groups
of
people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group
and I
am
glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your
feelings
about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason
why
we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest
you
share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss
the
UCoC
is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Dan, > > You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
and > more useful on the Draft talk page. > > That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings", > you probably expected a different model where different language > Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to
have
a
> UCoC. > > The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the
draft
and
if > there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest > improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to
help
and
> support the drafting committee at this stage. > > Regards > > Isaac > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really
like
to
> get a >> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion > on >> proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the
proceedings
> is >> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its > flatulence >> to itself. >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the
Board
or
> WMF >>> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>>> >>> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
> that >>> looks like an "imposition" >>> >>> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the
existing
> policy >> or >>> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any >> Wikimedia >>> project. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Isaac >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
> wrote: >>> >>>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above
without
>>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically
unsound.
>> Doubly >>>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily >>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of
the
>>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF
has
> taken >>> over >>>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative > process >>> when >>>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's
called
one. >>>> >>>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the
communities
to >> use >>>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org >> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, everyone. >>>>> >>>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of
Conduct
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which >> the >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>> , >>>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open
until
>> October >>>> 6, >>>>> 2020. >>>>> >>>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>>> wants >>>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you > or >>>> your >>>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and
what
>> could >>>> be >>>>> improved? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >>>> translations >>>>> so far. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please join the conversation >>>>> < >>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> >>>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to
join,
> too. >>>>> >>>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code
of
>> Conduct >>>>> page >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
and
> the >>> FAQ >>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
, > on >>>> Meta. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>> >>>>> [3] >>>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Patrick Earley >>>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
>> > _______________________________________________ > 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>
>
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
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
I'm not "confused" at all. Nor do I have any willingness to be "educated" by you. I reject your argument and I will reiterate that nothing I said would be in violation of any UCoC in existence.
This kind of condescending talking-down-to is far more insulting than anything I said. Perhaps you should reflect on your apparent belief that there's a form of lèse-majesté in play for the Wikimedia Foundation.
All I have done is point out the WMF's actions over the last 18 months which are certainly insulting to the community. You didn't have an administrator revolt in English Wikipedia because someone made a reference to ArbCom that referenced a malodorous moment, there was one because the WMF and the poorly named Trust & Safety insulted and demeaned the community repeatedly.
And for the public record, please note that I withdraw any permission for you to send messages to my email address. After your two messages, I want to make sure that any interaction between us is *in camera*.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:16 AM Jackie jackie.koerner@gmail.com wrote:
Dan,
I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling from your email because I have *never* written this word in any correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower people in the free knowledge movement.
This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and covered by a Code of Conduct.
In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and upset about the result.
Best,
Jackie
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon josephseddon@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its
inception.
Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an
organization
to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are*
considered
collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to
special
moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
the
failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
community?
One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is
also
someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
things
that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly
respected
in
the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who
has
written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world
that
I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
wording.
If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's
actions
over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
free
information movement being converted into a third-tier social media
app.
*I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
*I'm*
grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual
say
in
what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
bigger
than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One
of
the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
being
suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
for
many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
did
not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a
code
of
conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for
discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
about
« wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles
and
refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit
:
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
the
strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some
other
community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control
over
what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not
run
by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been
open
for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the
process
but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress
or
reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to
bring
in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the
new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash
between
them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com
wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in
June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC
itself
was
drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through
a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every
board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in
a
situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be
the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level
the
Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to
work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
> Hi Dan, > > I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely
implementation
of
a > Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this
is a
> WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC,
but
I
can > say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are
untrue.
It
> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many
groups
of
> people working together. It was determined as a major need during > discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group
and I
am
> glad to see this moving forward. > > I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your
feelings
about > the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people
express
> themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge
reason
why
we > need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest
you
share > in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just
cannot
take
> you seriously with the language you used in your email. I,
however,
would
> love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
> discussion about the UCoC. > > Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as > individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss
the
UCoC
> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
on > people in and outside of the Wikimedia community. > > Best, > > Jackie > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
> wrote: > >> Hello Dan, >> >> You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
> and >> more useful on the Draft talk page. >> >> That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the > proceedings", >> you probably expected a different model where different language >> Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather
to
have
a >> UCoC. >> >> The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the
draft
and
> if >> there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either
suggest
>> improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to
help
and
>> support the drafting committee at this stage. >> >> Regards >> >> Isaac >> >> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
wrote: >> >>> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really
like
to
>> get a >>> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer
an
> opinion >> on >>> proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings >> is >>> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep
its
>> flatulence >>> to itself. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde < > reachout2isaac@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the
Board
or >> WMF >>>> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>>>> >>>> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
>> that >>>> looks like an "imposition" >>>> >>>> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the
existing
>> policy >>> or >>>> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in
any
>>> Wikimedia >>>> project. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Isaac >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without >>>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. >>> Doubly >>>>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has > arbitrarily >>>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election
of
the >>>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF
has
>> taken >>>> over >>>>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a
collaborative
>> process >>>> when >>>>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's
called
> one. >>>>> >>>>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the
communities
> to >>> use >>>>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley < > pearley@wikimedia.org >>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello, everyone. >>>>>> >>>>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct >>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
,
> which >>> the >>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier
this
> year >>>>>> < >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>>> , >>>>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open
until
>>> October >>>>> 6, >>>>>> 2020. >>>>>> >>>>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>>>> < >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>>>> wants >>>>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges
for
> you >> or >>>>> your >>>>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what >>> could >>>>> be >>>>>> improved? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped
with
>>>>> translations >>>>>> so far. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please join the conversation >>>>>> < >>>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>> >>>>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to
join,
>> too. >>>>>> >>>>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code
of
>>> Conduct >>>>>> page >>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
,
and >> the >>>> FAQ >>>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
> , >> on >>>>> Meta. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
>>>>>> >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>> >>>>>> [3] >>>>> >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>>> [4] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Patrick Earley >>>>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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>
>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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>
>> > > > -- > Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. > jackiekoerner.com > _______________________________________________ > 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop:
https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
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
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
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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
I want to echo Jackies two mail
The community for svwp is not so big and complicated issues on conduct are uncommon. But when they occur we often get caught in argument like " you who claim to decide over svwp CoC are just a small kabal of some 10-120 admins, you are unrepresentative and the enwp CoC says otherwise". It will be of big help for us when we need not go into detailed discussion over every abuse, but can refer to the UCoC (and not just ToU).
And wordings... We consist of people form many different culture and language, so what one small group can be seen as acceptable wording can be seen as offensive to other.
When I worked in the Swedish global company Ericsson, the interal language was English. But in reality that internal vocabulary only used 5-10% of the English words, and never puns or sarcasm, and often rather blunt expressions than too "flowery". I think something similar must be what we use in our internal communication of Wikimedia. And that will be welcome for all non-native English people, but can be harder for native English people. I have given feedback to top WMF people when the used too complicated/flowery sentences that made it hard for non-natives to understand what was said.
Anders
Den 2020-09-10 kl. 16:16, skrev Jackie:
Dan,
I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling from your email because I have *never* written this word in any correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower people in the free knowledge movement.
This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and covered by a Code of Conduct.
In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and upset about the result.
Best,
Jackie
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon josephseddon@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception. Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
the
failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
community?
One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
things
that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
in
the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
wording.
If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
free
information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app. *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
*I'm*
grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
in
what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
bigger
than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
being
suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
for
many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
did
not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
of
conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
about
« wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles
and
refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
the
strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some
other
community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run
by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process
but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring
in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash
between
them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com
wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself
was
drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be
the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level
the
Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
> Hi Dan, > > I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely
implementation
of
a > Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a > WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC,
but
I
can > say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue.
It
> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many
groups
of
> people working together. It was determined as a major need during > discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group
and I
am
> glad to see this moving forward. > > I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your
feelings
about > the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express > themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason
why
we > need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest
you
share > in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
> you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
> love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
> discussion about the UCoC. > > Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as > individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss
the
UCoC
> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
on > people in and outside of the Wikimedia community. > > Best, > > Jackie > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
> wrote: > >> Hello Dan, >> >> You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
> and >> more useful on the Draft talk page. >> >> That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the > proceedings", >> you probably expected a different model where different language >> Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to
have
a >> UCoC. >> >> The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the
draft
and
> if >> there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest >> improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to
help
and
>> support the drafting committee at this stage. >> >> Regards >> >> Isaac >> >> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote: >>> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really
like
to
>> get a >>> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an > opinion >> on >>> proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings >> is >>> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its >> flatulence >>> to itself. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde < > reachout2isaac@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the
Board
or >> WMF >>>> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>>>> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
>> that >>>> looks like an "imposition" >>>> >>>> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the
existing
>> policy >>> or >>>> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any >>> Wikimedia >>>> project. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Isaac >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >>>>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without >>>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. >>> Doubly >>>>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has > arbitrarily >>>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the >>>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF
has
>> taken >>>> over >>>>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative >> process >>>> when >>>>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's
called
> one. >>>>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the
communities
> to >>> use >>>>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley < > pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello, everyone. >>>>>> >>>>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, > which >>> the >>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this > year >>>>>> < >>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>>> , >>>>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open
until
>>> October >>>>> 6, >>>>>> 2020. >>>>>> >>>>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>>>> < >>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>>>> wants >>>>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for > you >> or >>>>> your >>>>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what >>> could >>>>> be >>>>>> improved? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >>>>> translations >>>>>> so far. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please join the conversation >>>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to
join,
>> too. >>>>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code
of
>>> Conduct >>>>>> page >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and >> the >>>> FAQ >>>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
> , >> on >>>>> Meta. >>>>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>>>>> >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> >>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>> [3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>>> [4] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Patrick Earley >>>>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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>
>> _______________________________________________ >> 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>
> > -- > Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. > jackiekoerner.com > _______________________________________________ > 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
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
Sure, WMF running roughshod over the community is something that doesn't happen.
I must be imagining the events that led to the community open letter on renaming, which featured nearly a thousand individual endorsers and 72 community affiliates.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
And do we *really* want to go into events leading to Heilman's suspension from the board or Tretikov's resignation? The Fram suspension and under whose authority the investigation was launched? Should we talk a bit about the Funds Dissemination Committee?
I would wager we don't, but if someone's going to suggest to me with a straight face that we should assume the goodness and purity of the WMF, then there's all this and a *lot* more to unwind. This can't be hand-waved away; too many people "know where the bodies are buried."
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:48 AM Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
I want to echo Jackies two mail
The community for svwp is not so big and complicated issues on conduct are uncommon. But when they occur we often get caught in argument like " you who claim to decide over svwp CoC are just a small kabal of some 10-120 admins, you are unrepresentative and the enwp CoC says otherwise". It will be of big help for us when we need not go into detailed discussion over every abuse, but can refer to the UCoC (and not just ToU).
And wordings... We consist of people form many different culture and language, so what one small group can be seen as acceptable wording can be seen as offensive to other.
When I worked in the Swedish global company Ericsson, the interal language was English. But in reality that internal vocabulary only used 5-10% of the English words, and never puns or sarcasm, and often rather blunt expressions than too "flowery". I think something similar must be what we use in our internal communication of Wikimedia. And that will be welcome for all non-native English people, but can be harder for native English people. I have given feedback to top WMF people when the used too complicated/flowery sentences that made it hard for non-natives to understand what was said.
Anders
Den 2020-09-10 kl. 16:16, skrev Jackie:
Dan,
I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your
use
of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference
spelling
from your email because I have *never* written this word in any correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an
organization
of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment
is
hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower people in the free knowledge movement.
This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are
rather
homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive
and
covered by a Code of Conduct.
In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a
CoC
would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their
behavior
impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is
offensive, I
am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I
find
that text-based communication provides complications for discussions
about
emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and upset about the result.
Best,
Jackie
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon josephseddon@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its
inception.
Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an
organization
to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are*
considered
collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to
special
moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
the
failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
community?
One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is
also
someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
things
that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly
respected
in
the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who
has
written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world
that
I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
wording.
If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's
actions
over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
free
information movement being converted into a third-tier social media
app.
*I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
*I'm*
grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual
say
in
what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
bigger
than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One
of
the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
being
suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
for
many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
did
not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
of
conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
about
« wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles
and
refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
the
strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some
other
community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run
by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process
but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring
in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash
between
them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com
wrote:
> The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
> by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
> process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF > appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had > pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
> reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself
was
> drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
> set by the WMF. > > The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
> having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
> ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
> and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
> into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how
> far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and
> will implement policy based on community decisions. > > That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
> or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a > situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue > contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be
the
time
> for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level
the
> Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
> them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired. > > -- Yair Rand > > > > בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < > jackie.koerner@gmail.com>: > >> Hi Dan, >> >> I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely
implementation
of
> a >> Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a >> WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC,
but
I
> can >> say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue.
It
>> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many
groups
of
>> people working together. It was determined as a major need during >> discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group
and I
am
>> glad to see this moving forward. >> >> I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your
feelings
> about >> the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express >> themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason
why
> we >> need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest
you
> share >> in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
>> you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
>> love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
>> discussion about the UCoC. >> >> Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as >> individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss
the
UCoC
>> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
> on >> people in and outside of the Wikimedia community. >> >> Best, >> >> Jackie >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >> >>> Hello Dan, >>> >>> You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
>> and >>> more useful on the Draft talk page. >>> >>> That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the >> proceedings", >>> you probably expected a different model where different language >>> Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to
have
> a >>> UCoC. >>> >>> The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the
draft
and
>> if >>> there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest >>> improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to
help
and
>>> support the drafting committee at this stage. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Isaac >>> >>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com > wrote: >>>> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really
like
to
>>> get a >>>> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an >> opinion >>> on >>>> proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the > proceedings >>> is >>>> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its >>> flatulence >>>> to itself. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde < >> reachout2isaac@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the
Board
> or >>> WMF >>>>> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>>>>> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
>>> that >>>>> looks like an "imposition" >>>>> >>>>> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the
existing
>>> policy >>>> or >>>>> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any >>>> Wikimedia >>>>> project. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Isaac >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
>>> wrote: >>>>>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above > without >>>>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically > unsound. >>>> Doubly >>>>>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has >> arbitrarily >>>>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of > the >>>>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF
has
>>> taken >>>>> over >>>>>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative >>> process >>>>> when >>>>>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's
called
>> one. >>>>>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the
communities
>> to >>>> use >>>>>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley < >> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, everyone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of > Conduct >>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, >> which >>>> the >>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this >> year >>>>>>> < >>>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open
until
>>>> October >>>>>> 6, >>>>>>> 2020. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>>>>> < >>>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>>>>> wants >>>>>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for >> you >>> or >>>>>> your >>>>>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and > what >>>> could >>>>>> be >>>>>>> improved? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >>>>>> translations >>>>>>> so far. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please join the conversation >>>>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to
join,
>>> too. >>>>>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code
of
>>>> Conduct >>>>>>> page >>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, > and >>> the >>>>> FAQ >>>>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>> , >>> on >>>>>> Meta. >>>>>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>>> [3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>>>> [4] >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Patrick Earley >>>>>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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>
>>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
>> >> -- >> Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. >> jackiekoerner.com >> _______________________________________________ >> 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
Mr. Szymborski,
I understand you have very little faith in the Wikimedia Foundation, and are upset about some past decisions and statements it has made. As I already wrote above, you are welcome to express that criticism so long as you manage to remain civil, which includes avoiding vulgarity.
But I also must insist that you not hijack this thread, which is for discussing the draft UCoC. If you see value in bringing up your concerns on those other matters on this list, please do so on separate threads. Since you have expressed the opinion that this UCoC draft is illegitimate, I suggest there is really no reason for you to post further on this thread, leaving it for those who *would* like to discuss it.
As you have seen, we have not yet prevented any of your messages from reaching the list, but we will, if you refuse to respect this express expectation.
A.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:15 PM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, WMF running roughshod over the community is something that doesn't happen.
I must be imagining the events that led to the community open letter on renaming, which featured nearly a thousand individual endorsers and 72 community affiliates.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
And do we *really* want to go into events leading to Heilman's suspension from the board or Tretikov's resignation? The Fram suspension and under whose authority the investigation was launched? Should we talk a bit about the Funds Dissemination Committee?
I would wager we don't, but if someone's going to suggest to me with a straight face that we should assume the goodness and purity of the WMF, then there's all this and a *lot* more to unwind. This can't be hand-waved away; too many people "know where the bodies are buried."
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:48 AM Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
I want to echo Jackies two mail
The community for svwp is not so big and complicated issues on conduct are uncommon. But when they occur we often get caught in argument like " you who claim to decide over svwp CoC are just a small kabal of some 10-120 admins, you are unrepresentative and the enwp CoC says otherwise". It will be of big help for us when we need not go into detailed discussion over every abuse, but can refer to the UCoC (and not just ToU).
And wordings... We consist of people form many different culture and language, so what one small group can be seen as acceptable wording can be seen as offensive to other.
When I worked in the Swedish global company Ericsson, the interal language was English. But in reality that internal vocabulary only used 5-10% of the English words, and never puns or sarcasm, and often rather blunt expressions than too "flowery". I think something similar must be what we use in our internal communication of Wikimedia. And that will be welcome for all non-native English people, but can be harder for native English people. I have given feedback to top WMF people when the used too complicated/flowery sentences that made it hard for non-natives to understand what was said.
Anders
Den 2020-09-10 kl. 16:16, skrev Jackie:
Dan,
I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a
Universal
Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a
clear
understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your
use
of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference
spelling
from your email because I have *never* written this word in any correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an
organization
of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment
is
hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower people in the free knowledge movement.
This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people
who
*should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are
rather
homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive
and
covered by a Code of Conduct.
In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a
CoC
would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The
people
reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without
facing
public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear.
Based
off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what
response
and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their
behavior
impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is
offensive, I
am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I
find
that text-based communication provides complications for discussions
about
emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation
and
upset about the result.
Best,
Jackie
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon josephseddon@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its
inception.
Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an
organization
to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't
considered
"collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the
last
18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are*
considered
collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to
special
moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list
pushing
the
failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
community?
One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is
also
someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
things
that took up countless hours of community time, including making
legal
threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly
respected
in
the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who
has
written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world
that
I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
wording.
If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's
actions
over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of
a
free
information movement being converted into a third-tier social media
app.
*I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
*I'm*
grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual
say
in
what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
bigger
than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One
of
the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
being
suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to
write
for
many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that
they
did
not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a
code
of
conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for
discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
about
« wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on
this
thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles
and
refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
> Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit
:
> > Yair > > I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
the
> strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person > specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some
other
> community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control
over
what
> topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not
run
by
the > WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the program > went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
> and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
> to the future development of the movement. This process has been
open
for
> ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the
process
but
> every choice has been made by community members without any duress
or
> reward as to where each step lead. > > As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to
bring
in
new > contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
> to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be > unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the
new
person > is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash
between
> them and someone who has been around long enough to be known. > > > >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com
wrote:
>> The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in
June
2019 >> by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
>> process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF >> appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had >> pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with wildly-misleading >> reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC
itself
was
>> drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through
a
process >> set by the WMF. >> >> The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
>> having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
>> ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every
board
member >> and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
>> into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how >> far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and >> will implement policy based on community decisions. >> >> That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for nonparticipation/noncooperation >> or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in
a
>> situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue >> contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be
the
time >> for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level
the
>> Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to
work
with >> them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired. >> >> -- Yair Rand >> >> >> >> בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < >> jackie.koerner@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hi Dan, >>> >>> I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely
implementation
of >> a >>> Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this
is a
>>> WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC,
but
I
>> can >>> say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are
untrue.
It
>>> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many
groups
of
>>> people working together. It was determined as a major need during >>> discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group
and I
am >>> glad to see this moving forward. >>> >>> I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your
feelings
>> about >>> the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people
express
>>> themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge
reason
why
>> we >>> need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest
you
>> share >>> in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just
cannot
take >>> you seriously with the language you used in your email. I,
however,
would >>> love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith >>> discussion about the UCoC. >>> >>> Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as >>> individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss
the
UCoC >>> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
>> on >>> people in and outside of the Wikimedia community. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Jackie >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Dan, >>>> >>>> You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
>>> and >>>> more useful on the Draft talk page. >>>> >>>> That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the >>> proceedings", >>>> you probably expected a different model where different language >>>> Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather
to
have
>> a >>>> UCoC. >>>> >>>> The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the
draft
and >>> if >>>> there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either
suggest
>>>> improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to
help
and >>>> support the drafting committee at this stage. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Isaac >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >>>>> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really
like
to
>>>> get a >>>>> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer
an
>>> opinion >>>> on >>>>> proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the >> proceedings >>>> is >>>>> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep
its
>>>> flatulence >>>>> to itself. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde < >>> reachout2isaac@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the
Board
>> or >>>> WMF >>>>>> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>>>>>> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
>>>> that >>>>>> looks like an "imposition" >>>>>> >>>>>> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the
existing
>>>> policy >>>>> or >>>>>> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in
any
>>>>> Wikimedia >>>>>> project. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Isaac >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above >> without >>>>>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically >> unsound. >>>>> Doubly >>>>>>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has >>> arbitrarily >>>>>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election
of
>> the >>>>>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF
has
>>>> taken >>>>>> over >>>>>>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a
collaborative
>>>> process >>>>>> when >>>>>>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's
called
>>> one. >>>>>>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the
communities
>>> to >>>>> use >>>>>>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley < >>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello, everyone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of >> Conduct >>>>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
,
>>> which >>>>> the >>>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier
this
>>> year >>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open
until
>>>>> October >>>>>>> 6, >>>>>>>> 2020. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>>>>>> wants >>>>>>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges
for
>>> you >>>> or >>>>>>> your >>>>>>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and >> what >>>>> could >>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> improved? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped
with
>>>>>>> translations >>>>>>>> so far. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please join the conversation >>>>>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>>>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to
join,
>>>> too. >>>>>>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code
of
>>>>> Conduct >>>>>>>> page >>>>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
,
>> and >>>> the >>>>>> FAQ >>>>>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>>> , >>>> on >>>>>>> Meta. >>>>>>>> [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>>>> [3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>>>>> [4] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Patrick Earley >>>>>>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>>>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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>
>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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>
>>> >>> -- >>> Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. >>> jackiekoerner.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
> > -- > GN. > > *Power of Diverse Collaboration* > *Sharing knowledge brings people together* > Wikimania Bangkok 2021 > August > hosted by ESEAP > > Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> My print shop:
https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
> _______________________________________________ > 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>
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
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
Anders, I think you are referring to jargon. I agree that it should be avoided in the interests of clarity and ease of reliable translation. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten Sent: 10 September 2020 16:48 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
I want to echo Jackies two mail
The community for svwp is not so big and complicated issues on conduct are uncommon. But when they occur we often get caught in argument like " you who claim to decide over svwp CoC are just a small kabal of some 10-120 admins, you are unrepresentative and the enwp CoC says otherwise". It will be of big help for us when we need not go into detailed discussion over every abuse, but can refer to the UCoC (and not just ToU).
And wordings... We consist of people form many different culture and language, so what one small group can be seen as acceptable wording can be seen as offensive to other.
When I worked in the Swedish global company Ericsson, the interal language was English. But in reality that internal vocabulary only used 5-10% of the English words, and never puns or sarcasm, and often rather blunt expressions than too "flowery". I think something similar must be what we use in our internal communication of Wikimedia. And that will be welcome for all non-native English people, but can be harder for native English people. I have given feedback to top WMF people when the used too complicated/flowery sentences that made it hard for non-natives to understand what was said.
Anders
Den 2020-09-10 kl. 16:16, skrev Jackie:
Dan,
I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling from your email because I have *never* written this word in any correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower people in the free knowledge movement.
This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and covered by a Code of Conduct.
In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and upset about the result.
Best,
Jackie
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon josephseddon@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception. Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
the
failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
community?
One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
things
that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
in
the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
wording.
If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
free
information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app. *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
*I'm*
grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
in
what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
bigger
than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
being
suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
for
many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
did
not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
of
conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
about
« wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles
and
refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
the
strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some
other
community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run
by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process
but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring
in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash
between
them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com
wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself
was
drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be
the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level
the
Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
> Hi Dan, > > I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely
implementation
of
a > Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a > WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC,
but
I
can > say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue.
It
> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many
groups
of
> people working together. It was determined as a major need during > discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group
and I
am
> glad to see this moving forward. > > I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your
feelings
about > the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express > themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason
why
we > need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest
you
share > in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
> you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
> love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
> discussion about the UCoC. > > Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as > individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss
the
UCoC
> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
on > people in and outside of the Wikimedia community. > > Best, > > Jackie > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
> wrote: > >> Hello Dan, >> >> You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
> and >> more useful on the Draft talk page. >> >> That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the > proceedings", >> you probably expected a different model where different language >> Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to
have
a >> UCoC. >> >> The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the
draft
and
> if >> there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest >> improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to
help
and
>> support the drafting committee at this stage. >> >> Regards >> >> Isaac >> >> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote: >>> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really
like
to
>> get a >>> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an > opinion >> on >>> proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings >> is >>> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its >> flatulence >>> to itself. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde < > reachout2isaac@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the
Board
or >> WMF >>>> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>>>> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
>> that >>>> looks like an "imposition" >>>> >>>> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the
existing
>> policy >>> or >>>> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any >>> Wikimedia >>>> project. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Isaac >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >>>>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without >>>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. >>> Doubly >>>>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has > arbitrarily >>>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the >>>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF
has
>> taken >>>> over >>>>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative >> process >>>> when >>>>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's
called
> one. >>>>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the
communities
> to >>> use >>>>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley < > pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello, everyone. >>>>>> >>>>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, > which >>> the >>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this > year >>>>>> < >>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>>> , >>>>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open
until
>>> October >>>>> 6, >>>>>> 2020. >>>>>> >>>>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>>>> < >>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>>>> wants >>>>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for > you >> or >>>>> your >>>>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what >>> could >>>>> be >>>>>> improved? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >>>>> translations >>>>>> so far. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please join the conversation >>>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to
join,
>> too. >>>>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code
of
>>> Conduct >>>>>> page >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and >> the >>>> FAQ >>>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
> , >> on >>>>> Meta. >>>>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>>>>> >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> >>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>> [3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>>> [4] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Patrick Earley >>>>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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>
>> _______________________________________________ >> 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>
> > -- > Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. > jackiekoerner.com > _______________________________________________ > 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
For a UVoC to be helpful, it would have to be sufficiently clear about what is unacceptable, and why it is unacceptable, and would itself have to be sufficiently clear and acceptable to be seen as fair by the communities who would be bound by it. This is not easy to do, and the talk page already illustrates how far the draft is from an acceptable state of clarity. I am not saying it cannot get there, but it will take more work. Possibly a lot more work, and it does not appear to be getting there fast.
What Anders says about the use of a simplified subset of English has value. Words should be used that are easily translatable, even when this may require more words to be used to make a point.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jackie Sent: 10 September 2020 16:16 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
Dan,
I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling from your email because I have *never* written this word in any correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower people in the free knowledge movement.
This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and covered by a Code of Conduct.
In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and upset about the result.
Best,
Jackie
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon josephseddon@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception. Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered collegial.
If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
the
failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
community?
One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
things
that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
in
the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
wording.
If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
free
information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app. *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
*I'm*
grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
in
what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
bigger
than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
No, I didn't mean petit.
Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing vigorously is what adults are able to do.
It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
being
suppressed on dubious grounds.
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
for
many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
did
not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
action
because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
of
conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
and
I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
about
« wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
supposedly
asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles
and
refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
the
strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some
other
community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over
what
topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run
by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
Trust
and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
necessary
to the future development of the movement. This process has been open
for
ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process
but
every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring
in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
advantages
to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash
between
them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com
wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself
was
drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
against
having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in
setting
ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
affiliate
into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be
the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level
the
Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely
implementation
of
a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC,
but
I
can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue.
It
doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many
groups
of
people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group
and I
am
glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your
feelings
about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason
why
we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest
you
share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss
the
UCoC
is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their
effect
on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Dan, > > You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's
better
and > more useful on the Draft talk page. > > That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings", > you probably expected a different model where different language > Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to
have
a
> UCoC. > > The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the
draft
and
if > there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest > improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to
help
and
> support the drafting committee at this stage. > > Regards > > Isaac > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really
like
to
> get a >> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion > on >> proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the
proceedings
> is >> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its > flatulence >> to itself. >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the
Board
or
> WMF >>> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest
improvement.
>>> >>> I have been following the process closely and I do not see
anything
> that >>> looks like an "imposition" >>> >>> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the
existing
> policy >> or >>> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any >> Wikimedia >>> project. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Isaac >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski@gmail.com>
> wrote: >>> >>>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above
without
>>>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically
unsound.
>> Doubly >>>> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily >>>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of
the
>>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF
has
> taken >>> over >>>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative > process >>> when >>>> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's
called
one. >>>> >>>> The best use of time at this point is to organize the
communities
to >> use >>>> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org >> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, everyone. >>>>> >>>>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of
Conduct
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which >> the >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>>> , >>>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open
until
>> October >>>> 6, >>>>> 2020. >>>>> >>>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>>> wants >>>>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you > or >>>> your >>>>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and
what
>> could >>>> be >>>>> improved? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >>>> translations >>>>> so far. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please join the conversation >>>>> < >>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> >>>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to
join,
> too. >>>>> >>>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code
of
>> Conduct >>>>> page >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
and
> the >>> FAQ >>>>> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
, > on >>>> Meta. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>>> >>>>> [3] >>>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Patrick Earley >>>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
>> > _______________________________________________ > 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>
>
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
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 Natacha,
I am not opposed to UCoC but I am afraid you have unrealistic expectations.
We do have serious behavioral problems in the big communities. One of them, for example, is that the general tone of discussions is very aggressive and prevents some categories of users, for example, women, from participating. A completely different one is a proliferation of POV pushers in all possible topics. However, UCoC will not solve these problems. It will not solve any problems of the French Wikipedia.
The point is that big projects had twenty years to solve behavioral issues, and have developed an extensive system of policies and guidelines to deal with them. In some cases, policies are missing because the communities were not able to come up with a good solution, acceptable for everyone, and it is very naive to think that a small dedicated group will be able to develop something better in two months. I see that it does not even pretend doing this, which is a good thing, but even if they were thinking they know better than the communities such UCoC were impossible to enforce. Another reason sometimes is that policies already exist but are not fully enforced - and here UCoC will not help either, the projects must look themselves and figure out why the policies are not enforced.
Where UCoC can potentially help are small projects without well-developed conduct policies. A few year ago, a user was blocked on the Acehnese Wikipedia for something that the admin thought is an insult to Islam (I believe posting non-offensive images of people but I muight be wrong). On the Chechen Wikipedia, a user was blocked for stating that Chechnya is part of Russia. A couple of years ago, a user was blocked on the Amcharic Wikipedia, and the admin said openly gay users are not allowed to edit because this is contrary to Ethiopian tradition. The Croatian Wikipedia is essentially governed by a clique blocking everybody who disagrees, and nobody can do anything about it. These are the showcases where UCoC may be (or even might be) instrumental, and only if one thinks very well what the instruments could be. Not on the big projects.
Best Yaroslav
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 8:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write for many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they did not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take action because it offers a frame.
This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code of conduct.
So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions, and I hope the language will remain respectful.
I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke about « wmf flatulence ».
I dont want to read that type of language among people who are supposedly asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles and refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com a écrit :
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some other community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over what topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by
the
WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
program
went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus. Trust and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as necessary to the future development of the movement. This process has been open for ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process but every choice has been made by community members without any duress or reward as to where each step lead.
As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in
new
contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving advantages to those who have been around longer but that is not something that will
be
unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
person
is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the strategy process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
wildly-misleading
reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself was drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
process
set by the WMF.
The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus against having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in setting ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
member
and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every affiliate into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be demonstrating
how
far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are self-governing
and
will implement policy based on community decisions.
That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
nonparticipation/noncooperation
or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be the
time
for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level the Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
with
them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie < jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation
of
a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I
can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of people working together. It was determined as a major need during discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I
am
glad to see this moving forward.
I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings
about
the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why
we
need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you
share
in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
take
you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
would
love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
good-faith
discussion about the UCoC.
Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the
UCoC
is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect
on
people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
Best,
Jackie
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
and
more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
proceedings",
you probably expected a different model where different language Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have
a
UCoC.
The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft
and
if
there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help
and
support the drafting committee at this stage.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
opinion
on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the
proceedings
is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
flatulence
to itself.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board
or
WMF
> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement. > > I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
that
> looks like an "imposition" > > The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
policy
or > guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any Wikimedia > project. > > Regards > > Isaac > > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above
without
>> community approval, participating in any way is ethically
unsound.
Doubly >> so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
arbitrarily
>> denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of
the
>> community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
taken
> over >> the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
process
> when >> it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
one.
>> >> The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities
to
use >> every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition. >> >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <
pearley@wikimedia.org
>> wrote: >> >>> Hello, everyone. >>> >>> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of
Conduct
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
which
the >>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this
year
>>> < >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>>> , >>> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October >> 6, >>> 2020. >>> >>> The UCoC Drafting Committee >>> < >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>> wants >>> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for
you
or
>> your >>> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and
what
could >> be >>> improved? >>> >>> >>> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with >> translations >>> so far. >>> >>> >>> Please join the conversation >>> < >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>> and share this email with others who may be interested to join,
too.
>>> >>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct >>> page >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct,
and
the
> FAQ >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
,
on
>> Meta. >>> >>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct >>> >>> [2] >>> >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
>>> >>> [3] >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>> [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>>> >>> -- >>> Patrick Earley >>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety >>> Wikimedia Foundation >>> pearley@wikimedia.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
>> > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
-- Jackie Koerner, Ph.D. jackiekoerner.com _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ 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
Yeah, we've seen from the branding fiasco just how much the imperial overlords deign to respect the opinions of the peasants.
The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the community board elections, have been scuttled for Very Convenient Reasons.
The model is terribly broken and nobody should provide any support, financial or otherwise, to the WMF in its current incarnation.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:42 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better and more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings", you probably expected a different model where different language Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a UCoC.
The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft and if there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and support the drafting committee at this stage.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion
on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
flatulence
to itself.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
WMF
as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
that
looks like an "imposition"
The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
policy
or
guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
Wikimedia
project.
Regards
Isaac
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
Doubly
so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
taken
over
the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
process
when
it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to
use
every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley <pearley@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello, everyone.
We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which
the
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
,
for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
October
6,
The UCoC Drafting Committee <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
wants
to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you
or
your
work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what
could
be
improved?
Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with
translations
so far.
Please join the conversation <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
and share this email with others who may be interested to join,
too.
To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of
Conduct
page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and
the
FAQ
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ,
on
Meta.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
-- Patrick Earley Policy Manager, Trust and Safety Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:06, Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the community board elections
[...]
They're not elections; we get to vote on nominations, the board decide whether to accept them.
UCoC is pointless if their systems of enforcement are themselves biased or weighted in any way to those who are known to the community. The large communities already have policies, the problem in those communities is the unwillingness and inability of the process to be enforced equally on those who have deeply established connections within the community. It gets more complicated when the nuances of local cultural use of language runs into the linguistic, cultural, and, or second language generic teachings of the language.
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 03:44, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:06, Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the
community
board elections
[...]
They're not elections; we get to vote on nominations, the board decide whether to accept them.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
There was meant to be a " " there, but my phone rudely stripped it.
If it does it again, I'll make up a rule and suspend it for a year. It's what the WMF would want, I'm sure.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:45 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:06, Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com wrote:
The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the
community
board elections
[...]
They're not elections; we get to vote on nominations, the board decide whether to accept them.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
Some thoughts over the matter: Wikipedia has already rules about how the users should interact and the "penalties" that all users would endure equally if they wouldn 't apply to them. If you are a volunteer/user the things are simple. You get blocked and that is that. Imagine being a newbie then sadly, things are even more simple. The problem starts when the administrators who are called to perform those rules are the harrashers themselves and don' t get punished. For example old users with multiple interactions with WMF such as grants, being in user groups/chapters with funding, grantees of trips in conferences annualy and having created a net of protection of users/administrators around them over the years, because they know the tricks to fly under the rader and be likeable. People as such, who see their interaction with wikipedia more as a profortable and prestigious job, and are "vauliable" to wmf because they run the annual contests in wikipedia or doing other wikimedia jobs beneficiary to the foundation but not wikipedia, is the code of contact going to apply as well? Simple rules don't. And who will execute it? I believe that the code of conduct is an attempt, for the wmf to be politically correct in the eyes of the world and the communities that something is going to change to the better in wikipedia. I believe that the code of conduct will not solve any problems because that is not why it's being made for. Participating to the discussion just legalize wmf behaviour to not encounter all user equally and "putting under the rag" serious harrasment cases by users just because they get the job done.
But the truth of the matter is that WMF only regards us as equals when needs us to support it.
Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής
Στις Τετ, 9 Σεπ 2020, 4:22 π.μ. ο χρήστης Dan Szymborski < dszymborski@gmail.com> έγραψε:
There was meant to be a " " there, but my phone rudely stripped it.
If it does it again, I'll make up a rule and suspend it for a year. It's what the WMF would want, I'm sure.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:45 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:06, Dan Szymborski dszymborski@gmail.com
wrote:
The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the
community
board elections
[...]
They're not elections; we get to vote on nominations, the board decide whether to accept them.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
Dear anonymus,
The problem starts when the administrators who are called to
perform those rules are the harrashers themselves and don' t get punished.
A code of conduct should preempt this.
For example [users who can] fly under the rader and be likeable.
[users who] run the annual contests in wikipedia or doing other wikimedia
jobs...
is the code of contact going to apply as well?
Yes. That is the point.
S
Thanks Patrick + all. It looks like most discussion is happening on Meta, which seems fitting.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone.
We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, which the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
,
for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October 6, 2020.
The UCoC Drafting Committee < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
wants
to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or your work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could be improved?
Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with translations so far.
Please join the conversation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct, and the FAQ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ, on Meta.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2...
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
-- Patrick Earley Policy Manager, Trust and Safety Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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