Re: [Wikitech-l] coc ban - Wikitech-l

Arlo Breault

8 Aug 8 Aug

4:20 p.m.

New subject: coc ban

On Aug 8, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Saint Johann <ole.yves(a)gmail.com> wrote: especially when said to Wikimedia employees as opposed to volunteers.)

Can you elaborate on that?

Reply

Brion Vibber

5:54 p.m.

New subject: coc ban

Oleg -- I interpret that suggestion as "employees of WMF and WMDE have to accept all ongoing abuse they are given without complaint"; that may not be what you intended but that's how I read it, and I'd like to unequivocally *reject that notion*. WMF and WMDE employees are people performing a job, and deserve a safe work environment. When it's suggested that long-term abusive behavior against employees be tolerated because it's not a big deal or it's just volunteers letting off steam, I have to counter that it *is* a big deal. It promotes burn-out and harms people both personally and professionally. Please don't be part of that cycle of abuse and burn-out, all. It's not cool, it's not productive, it's not funny, and it doesn't help you get what you wanted done. -- brion On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:43 AM Saint Johann <ole.yves(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Sure. Wikimedia Foundation employees inherently have more privilege and weight in MediaWiki developer community than the volunteers do, especially less participating ones. Power dynamics of the discussion between a volunteer and an employee (and, sometimes even more generally on Phabricator) are structured in a way in that more than frequently an end decision will be taken not by volunteers or all Wikimedia community, but by employees or people that are more well-versed in MediaWiki development spaces (who also can happen to be employees). Code of conduct is important to be enforced, but, in my opinion, there should be a difference in how it’s enforced. To volunteers that help the movement, there should be no unacceptable language, as it is a way (and a purpose of something like code of conduct) to make MediaWiki development spaces more welcoming to future volunteers. However, employees, while in their capacity, should be (in reasonable amounts) less guarded against non-constructive criticism, because at many times all you can provide to someone’s work decisions could only be non-constructive because you know that no minds and hearts will be changed by any amount of constructive criticism. I am, of course, not talking about any kinds of serious stuff (Jimmy Wales language), but more about ‘WTF language’. Oleg On 08/08/2018 19:20, Arlo Breault wrote:

On Aug 8, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Saint Johann <ole.yves(a)gmail.com> wrote: especially when said to Wikimedia employees as opposed to volunteers.)

Can you elaborate on that?

_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply

Isarra Yos

6:08 p.m.

New subject: coc ban

Yeah, even if it seems like volunteers are treated as second class citizens, advocating mistreatment of staff too isn't going to resolve anything. We should all just try to do our best, and all realise that these are /peolpe/ we're dealing with. It's not always going to be perfect, it's not always going to be professional... and this goes both ways. We shouldn't expect needlessly high standards of behaviour or putting up with things from anyone, on any side. -I On 08/08/18 17:54, Brion Vibber wrote:

...

Oleg -- I interpret that suggestion as "employees of WMF and WMDE have to accept all ongoing abuse they are given without complaint"; that may not be what you intended but that's how I read it, and I'd like to unequivocally *reject that notion*. WMF and WMDE employees are people performing a job, and deserve a safe work environment. When it's suggested that long-term abusive behavior against employees be tolerated because it's not a big deal or it's just volunteers letting off steam, I have to counter that it *is* a big deal. It promotes burn-out and harms people both personally and professionally. Please don't be part of that cycle of abuse and burn-out, all. It's not cool, it's not productive, it's not funny, and it doesn't help you get what you wanted done. -- brion On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:43 AM Saint Johann <ole.yves(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Sure. Wikimedia Foundation employees inherently have more privilege and weight in MediaWiki developer community than the volunteers do, especially less participating ones. Power dynamics of the discussion between a volunteer and an employee (and, sometimes even more generally on Phabricator) are structured in a way in that more than frequently an end decision will be taken not by volunteers or all Wikimedia community, but by employees or people that are more well-versed in MediaWiki development spaces (who also can happen to be employees). Code of conduct is important to be enforced, but, in my opinion, there should be a difference in how it’s enforced. To volunteers that help the movement, there should be no unacceptable language, as it is a way (and a purpose of something like code of conduct) to make MediaWiki development spaces more welcoming to future volunteers. However, employees, while in their capacity, should be (in reasonable amounts) less guarded against non-constructive criticism, because at many times all you can provide to someone’s work decisions could only be non-constructive because you know that no minds and hearts will be changed by any amount of constructive criticism. I am, of course, not talking about any kinds of serious stuff (Jimmy Wales language), but more about ‘WTF language’. Oleg On 08/08/2018 19:20, Arlo Breault wrote:

On Aug 8, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Saint Johann <ole.yves(a)gmail.com> wrote: especially when said to Wikimedia employees as opposed to volunteers.)

Can you elaborate on that?

_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply

Saint Johann

6:29 p.m.

New subject: coc ban

Of course. But then you also have to consider that certain decisions by employees also can discourage people from constructive participation, especially when they are not thinking that their voice is or will be heard in any way. @Brion: Wasn’t talking about any ‘abuse’. As far as I know (as nothing was provided to suggest otherwise), the current case wasn’t about abuse, but about non-constructive language to an employee. WMF and WMDE employees, of course, deserve a safe work environment, but they have to consider that they have the most technical power in Wikimedia community, and when you have any kind of power, people will not always make light-hearted criticism of your actions (talking from of my experience as an ‘interface administrator’ in Russian Wikipedia, and that is still far less power than a typical employee has in their profile since anyone can revert you on a wiki). Oleg On 08/08/2018 21:00, Arlo Breault wrote:

...

On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:43 PM, Saint Johann <ole.yves(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Code of conduct is important to be enforced, but, in my opinion, there should be a difference in how it’s enforced. To volunteers that help the movement, there should be no unacceptable language, as it is a way (and a purpose of something like code of conduct) to make MediaWiki development spaces more welcoming to future volunteers.

Is it not possible that one volunteer's language discourages other volunteers from participating, regardless of who it's directed at?

Reply