On 8 September 2015 at 12:56, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 5 September 2015 at 19:11, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
On the general subject of codes of conduct and what they bring (or don't bring) in terms of user safety and a sense of inclusion, I recently encountered http://wp.me/p11Aax-4aq on Twitter - it's an interesting read and brings up a couple of points definitely worth thinking about, namely that the intent behind a CoC is not to be the be-all and end-all of user safety but instead to set a very minimum bound of what is acceptable.
Am I supposed to know what a manfeeling is?
I wondered the same thing.
It seems weird to me that a conversation about codes of conduct is being shifted into a discussion of "but the people writing about codes of conduct, let's debate where they fall on an ideological spectrum". This thread is not for discussing "militant feminist language" or "demonizing people for being male", this is about having a code of conduct, full stop.
Ok, let's talk about this in context of a code of conduct. One of the drivers behind the push for a code of conduct is that there is too much[1] misogyny in the larger "online technical community" world. But the answer to it isn't misandrist phrases like "worthless manfeelings" or dismissing because of poor word choice others' concerns over overly-gendered rhetoric being thrown around in various blog posts sent to the list as examples, as those too should be against the code of conduct.
Some people (regardless of gender or other characteristics) find harassing or discriminatory behavior offensive, such behavior is unfortunately too common,[1] and a code of conduct (assuming it's enforced) that prohibits such behavior can reassure concerned people that they will find support should they experience such behavior. Let's write one based on that premise rather than focusing on the female experience to the exclusion of all else. And, in fact, at a glance the language of current draft does seem to be on that basis.
It's ambiguous as to whether that last paragraph means "this CoC is targeted at the experiences of women and this is a bad thing" or "we should make sure we have an intersectional CoC and the current draft does a good job".
If it's the former, you're welcome to comment on the talkpage with proposed changes, although I disagree with your read on it; there are plenty of people of all gender identities or backgrounds who find the behaviour the draft is trying to protect against offensive. But the read that this primarily covers the experience of people excluded or underrepresented from/within our community is...exactly what a code of conduct should do. Yes, lots of people of all backgrounds find behaviour of various stripes inappropriate. But it's been pretty widely shown, through quantitative data and lived experiences, that different groups are more or less likely (as the demographics of the public feedback on the proposal suggests!) to stick around after being /exposed/ to that behaviour. A code of conduct that prioritises the experiences of those people who are particularly disenfranchised by poor behaviour is...well, a good code of conduct, unless you can point to parts of the CoC that actively drive away groups who are currently flourishing.
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Senior Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l