On 8 September 2015 at 12:56, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
<bjorsch(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Oliver Keyes
<okeyes(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 5 September 2015 at 19:11, MZMcBride
<z(a)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.
[1]: i.e. "incidence is greater than zero"
--
Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
Senior Software Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l