Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
Hi Risker / Anne,
In response to the points you raise:
* A panel suggests a group of people who discuss and decide things, it wouldn't
be that, it would be a pool of adjudicators.
* The home page shows 130,858 active editors, if 15% of those are female then
it means there must be 19,628 female editors to draw the 50% from.
* I don't participate in dispute management, but then I have never been asked
to.
* More people might agree to take part in dispute management if they know that
their input will be kept anonymous.
* Administrators would do what they have always done.
Example of a possible way to approach potential adjudicators:
Those eligible (maybe they've been editing for more than a year and they have
an edit history of 1,000+ edits) are sent a private e-mail, this would be a
circular to all eligible editors. It would say something like:
According to our records you have been with us for more than [length of
time] and have contributed over [number of edits]. We would therefore like to
invite you join our pool of adjudicators which we are currently in the
process of establishing. The purpose of adjudication would to consider
editors requests to block other editors ('cases'). We envisage adjudication
to be the first stage in managing cases with the second stage being handled
by administrators.
Your anonymity as an adjudicator would be protected by us at all times, in
fact one of the conditions of being an adjudicator would be that you have no
direct contact with those involved any of the cases which you are asked to
consider (although you may inform the Wikipedia community that you are an
adjudicator). If you wish to become an adjudicator please click on the link
and fill out the form. (The form would include equal opportunities monitoring
questions
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/private-and-public-sector-guidance/employing-people/recruitment/monitoring-forms
).
Example case:
* Editor 'X' wants a block against editor 'Y'.
* Editor X submits a case for adjudication.
* Adjudicator 'A' requests a case, the case is randomly selected from those
pending by computer.
* Adjudicator A reads the details and decides whether X has a point, or whether
Y appears to have behaved reasonably (even if X didn't like it).
* Adjudicator A marks a one of two check boxes, Pass to next stage? Yes [box]
No [box] (perhaps other boxes like I lack the technical knowledge to
adjudicate on this.) and a small comments form, maybe 1,000 characters.
* The same case goes to a few more adjudicators, 50% of whom are female.
* If enough rule that the case has merit then it goes forward and
administrators deal with it as they currently do (the idea is to weed out
groundless requests and save administrators and above time).
* Their would be a maximum number of cases that any single adjudicator could
rule on in a 24 or 48 hour period.
* From time to time there would be a general call, we currently have a backlog
of cases.
I must confess, I had to logout of Wikipedia and remind myself about what
questions are asked when joining. I'm so used to filling in Equal Opportunities
Monitoring Forms for statistical purposes that I didn't really think about not
being able to just run the query. Having said that, most user pages of active
users that I've seen do appear to volunteer which gender they are. It is
probably possible to go back.
Marie
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:45:34 -0400
From: risker...@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
A few points here:
If less than 15% of editors identify as female, and the vast majority of those
do not regularly participate in dispute management, how are you going to
establish a panel that is 50% women? This isn't a small point - there are so
few individuals generally speaking who regularly participate in dispute
management at all (I'd put the number on enwiki at less than 150 total), and
many of them are there because of the perceived power gradient, not because
they have a genuine interest in managing disputes.
What disputes, exactly, would the panel be analysing? I'm having a hard time
visualizing this. User: made a sexist comment here (link)?What would you
expect administrators to do, exactly? They're directly accountable for the use
of their tools and have to be able to personally justify any actions they take
- and surprisingly, a huge percentage of administrators (almost) never use the
block button. (There's a subset of admins who only use their tools to read
deleted versions, and another subset that only shows up once a year, makes a
couple of edits so they keep their tools, and disappears again.)
How would you develop any statistics based on gender of editor, when the
overwhelming majority of editors do not identify their gender at all in any
consistent fashion? I've personally never added any gender categories to my
userpage, for example,
Re: [Gendergap] Adrienne Wadewitz featured in short piece about Gendergap on the English Wikipedia
That’s really cool. (Just don’t read the comments. Awful misogyny contained therein. Is there any way we can get that crap removed?) -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ - Original message - From: Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] Adrienne Wadewitz featured in short piece about Gendergap on the English Wikipedia Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 12:54:55 +0200 In case you missed it, the Signpost this week gives a link to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP8QCG7keQw _ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
Speaking personally, whenever I am asked what my gender is, I say do not
want to answer; if that isn't an option, I have refused to join sites
before. As often as not, that information is used to categorize and
ghetto-ize people. I'm gobsmacked that you've found most people post their
gender on their userpages; I've never found that to be the case, and
looking at 25 or so userpages on my personal watchlist revealed only one
editor who included herself in a gender category; the rest (mostly male)
editors didn't come close. Are you sure that you're not perceiving that
information to be there because you know the gender of the editor?
I know what it's like to have my inbox flooded with requests for assistance
in relation to dispute resolution - just for oversight requests I get an
average of 8 emails a day, when I was on arbcom it was over 100/day to
various lists for various purposes. (Yes, it's one of the reasons that
people burn out.)
I also have a real problem with the idea of anonymous reporting and even
more so anonymous assessment of disputes. As an administrator, I'd have
really grave concerns about people gaming the system - it happens
constantly - and with only about 10% of administrators (that is, around
80-100) routinely having anything to do with dispute resolution, it would
take nothing to overwhelm them and burn them out.
It seems to me that there's this very mistaken impression amongst many on
this list that administrators on Wikipedia are somehow equivalent to
moderators on other webistes. In reality, very very few administrators
become admins in relation to dispute resolution. Most are looking at mop
work - deletions, vandal blocking, page protections and the like. Most
admins who are involved in dispute resolution were involved in it before
they became administrators. That's because Wikipedia is not primarily a
social site, it is an encyclopedia.
I will speak personally for a minute here. I have seen almost no
correlation at all between blocking people and changing behaviour; unless
someone's kicked out entirely and permanently, blocking tends to actually
escalate behaviour. A borderline first block without significant attempts
at discussion beforehand almost always leads to either (a) the person
leaving and never returning or (b) a disinhibition effect - since the
incentiveof being a user in good standing has been removed by the
existence of the block log. Many of our most seriously problematic
sockpuppeting accounts are people who've been blocked for behavioural
reasons - and we waste a huge amount of time trying to keep them off the
site.
Risker/Anne
On 7 July 2014 03:20, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Risker / Anne,
In response to the points you raise:
* A panel suggests a group of people who discuss and decide things, it
wouldn't be that, it would be a pool of adjudicators.
* The home page shows 130,858 active editors, if 15% of those are female
then it means there must be 19,628 female editors to draw the 50% from.
* I don't participate in dispute management, but then I have never been
asked to.
* More people might agree to take part in dispute management if they know
that their input will be kept anonymous.
* Administrators would do what they have always done.
Example of a possible way to approach potential adjudicators:
Those eligible (maybe they've been editing for more than a year and they
have an edit history of 1,000+ edits) are sent a private e-mail, this would
be a circular to all eligible editors. It would say something like:
According to our records you have been with us for more than [length of
time] and have contributed over [number of edits]. We would therefore like
to invite you join our pool of adjudicators which we are currently in the
process of establishing. The purpose of adjudication would to consider
editors requests to block other editors ('cases'). We envisage adjudication
to be the first stage in managing cases with the second stage being handled
by administrators.
Your anonymity as an adjudicator would be protected by us at all times,
in fact one of the conditions of being an adjudicator would be that you
have no direct contact with those involved any of the cases which you are
asked to consider (although you may inform the Wikipedia community that you
are an adjudicator). If you wish to become an adjudicator please click on
the link and fill out the form. (The form would include equal opportunities
monitoring questions
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/private-and-public-sector-guidance/employing-people/recruitment/monitoring-forms
).
Example case:
* Editor 'X' wants a block against editor 'Y'.
* Editor X submits a case for adjudication.
* Adjudicator 'A' requests a case, the case is randomly selected from
those pending by computer.
* Adjudicator A reads the details and decides whether X has a point, or
whether Y appears to have behaved reasonably (even if X didn't like it).
Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
While I've barely had a chance to read through proposal and comments, I'd like to just ask re the below which applies generally right now: On 7/7/2014 9:35 AM, Risker wrote: I know what it's like to have my inbox flooded with requests for assistance in relation to dispute resolution - just for oversight requests I get an average of 8 emails a day, when I was on arbcom it was over 100/day to various lists for various purposes. (Yes, it's one of the reasons that people burn out.) *Is it possible to establish a group of editors called arbcom assistants who would be admins appointed by arbcom to help with the workflow?? ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
On 7 July 2014 09:51, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: While I've barely had a chance to read through proposal and comments, I'd like to just ask re the below which applies generally right now: On 7/7/2014 9:35 AM, Risker wrote: I know what it's like to have my inbox flooded with requests for assistance in relation to dispute resolution - just for oversight requests I get an average of 8 emails a day, when I was on arbcom it was over 100/day to various lists for various purposes. (Yes, it's one of the reasons that people burn out.) *Is it possible to establish a group of editors called arbcom assistants who would be admins appointed by arbcom to help with the workflow?? Well. It's hard enough to get qualified volunteers to work on Arbcom, and their work is mainly on major cases with a lot of participants about disputes that have been adversely affecting the project for an extended period of months or in some cases years. There are arbcom clerks, whose job it is to keep the (few) cases moving relatively smoothly, and there's a bit of dispute resolution there. It looks like there are four of them - probably an historic low, and looking at the list I'm pretty sure two of them are actually inactive. Arbcom moving out of their very narrow scope has been very loudly and vigorously opposed by the community, and Arbcom itself is looking to try to divest itself of several of its current responsibilities rather than considering taking on anything new. This is absolutely *not* a job for arbcom. It's pretty much the kind of thing that arbitrators kept finding in their mailboxes that someone expected them to solve, but took hours away from the work they were supposed to be doing, and required the individual arbitrators to act on their own because the matter was outside of jurisdiction. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
Hi there,
I'm flagging the major issues that need to be considered.
1) we can not promise anonymity for the people acting as adjudicators. Any
attempt to have anonymous people hearing a case will attract attention from
a group if obsessive people who out anyone who is anonymous. Plus at times
harass them.
2) the reasons that people enforcing the rules on Wikipedia ignore
incivility, harassment, and trolling is because that approach is often the
best way to stop attention seeking behavior. The idea to not feed trolls
is well engrained into the culture and advise given by mature and
experienced people on the Internet.
3) blocks on Wikipedia are not suppose to be punitive but intended to
immediately stop disruptive user behavior. Attempts to use them to change
conduct is generally not successful. Instead people who are blocked often
become entrenched in proving that they are being treated poorly.
3) there is no way to stop people from editing Wikipedia. The wiki software
as used by WMF allows easy access to join, and edit. Attempts to stop
blocked or banned users from editing is part of what causes administrators
to burn out and ignore problems or over react to them.
4) banning people very engaged in the community rarely causes them to go
away.
Sydney
n Jul 7, 2014 3:20 AM, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Risker / Anne,
In response to the points you raise:
* A panel suggests a group of people who discuss and decide things, it
wouldn't be that, it would be a pool of adjudicators.
* The home page shows 130,858 active editors, if 15% of those are female
then it means there must be 19,628 female editors to draw the 50% from.
* I don't participate in dispute management, but then I have never been
asked to.
* More people might agree to take part in dispute management if they know
that their input will be kept anonymous.
* Administrators would do what they have always done.
Example of a possible way to approach potential adjudicators:
Those eligible (maybe they've been editing for more than a year and they
have an edit history of 1,000+ edits) are sent a private e-mail, this would
be a circular to all eligible editors. It would say something like:
According to our records you have been with us for more than [length
of time] and have contributed over [number of edits]. We would therefore
like to invite you join our pool of adjudicators which we are currently in
the process of establishing. The purpose of adjudication would to consider
editors requests to block other editors ('cases'). We envisage adjudication
to be the first stage in managing cases with the second stage being handled
by administrators.
Your anonymity as an adjudicator would be protected by us at all times,
in fact one of the conditions of being an adjudicator would be that you
have no direct contact with those involved any of the cases which you are
asked to consider (although you may inform the Wikipedia community that you
are an adjudicator). If you wish to become an adjudicator please click on
the link and fill out the form. (The form would include equal opportunities
monitoring questions
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/private-and-public-sector-guidance/employing-people/recruitment/monitoring-forms
).
Example case:
* Editor 'X' wants a block against editor 'Y'.
* Editor X submits a case for adjudication.
* Adjudicator 'A' requests a case, the case is randomly selected from
those pending by computer.
* Adjudicator A reads the details and decides whether X has a point, or
whether Y appears to have behaved reasonably (even if X didn't like it).
* Adjudicator A marks a one of two check boxes, Pass to next stage? Yes
[box] No [box] (perhaps other boxes like I lack the technical knowledge
to adjudicate on this.) and a small comments form, maybe 1,000 characters.
* The same case goes to a few more adjudicators, 50% of whom are female.
* If enough rule that the case has merit then it goes forward and
administrators deal with it as they currently do (the idea is to weed out
groundless requests and save administrators and above time).
* Their would be a maximum number of cases that any single adjudicator
could rule on in a 24 or 48 hour period.
* From time to time there would be a general call, we currently have a
backlog of cases.
I must confess, I had to logout of Wikipedia and remind myself about what
questions are asked when joining. I'm so used to filling in Equal
Opportunities Monitoring Forms for statistical purposes that I didn't
really think about not being able to just run the query. Having said that,
most user pages of active users that I've seen do appear to volunteer which
gender they are. It is probably possible to go back.
Marie
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:45:34 -0400
From: risker...@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
A few points here:
If less than 15% of editors
Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: Hi there, I'm flagging the major issues that need to be considered. 1) we can not promise anonymity for the people acting as adjudicators. Any attempt to have anonymous people hearing a case will attract attention from a group if obsessive people who out anyone who is anonymous. Plus at times harass them. 2) the reasons that people enforcing the rules on Wikipedia ignore incivility, harassment, and trolling is because that approach is often the best way to stop attention seeking behavior. The idea to not feed trolls is well engrained into the culture and advise given by mature and experienced people on the Internet. 3) blocks on Wikipedia are not suppose to be punitive but intended to immediately stop disruptive user behavior. Attempts to use them to change conduct is generally not successful. Instead people who are blocked often become entrenched in proving that they are being treated poorly. 3) there is no way to stop people from editing Wikipedia. The wiki software as used by WMF allows easy access to join, and edit. Attempts to stop blocked or banned users from editing is part of what causes administrators to burn out and ignore problems or over react to them. 4) banning people very engaged in the community rarely causes them to go away. Sydney So we can't bar people from using the site, and we don't have effective moderation tools (or moderators). We also realize that even if we had either, they would be used on only a teeny tiny sliver of all pages, and only by those who know about them and how to take advantage of them. This all suggests that the only cures to civility are to radically restrict how freely users can interact, or change the culture of the Internet. The first is antithetical to the nature of Wikimedia projects, and the second is impossible, so... Perhaps we decide that curing incivility is a bridge too far, and focus efforts to narrow the gender gap on other more practical opportunities. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
On 7 July 2014 13:00, Daniel and Elizabeth Case danc...@frontiernet.net wrote: 2) the reasons that people enforcing the rules on Wikipedia ignore incivility, harassment, and trolling is because that approach is often the best way to stop attention seeking behavior. The idea to not feed trolls is well engrained into the culture and advise given by mature and experienced people on the Internet. Or you can just block them firmly when they deserve it, escalate if and when you need to block them again, revoke their talk page access if they continue to use it to troll or harass (they can still use OTRS to request unblock; however, it’s amazing to see how much humbler they get when denied an audience), semi-protect pages they continue to use IPs to make the same problematic edits to and generally make it clear to them they are being eased away from the community. I realize there *is* a small percentage of such users that this will not stop, but in seven years as an admin I *have* seen this approach work much more often than not, regardless of whether said trolls were harassing me or someone else. Interesting to hear your experience, Daniel. It doesn't parallel mine at all, but then perhaps we're looking at different groups of problem users. I've never seen anyone humbled by a behaviour block, in my experience they're usually gone for good (those ones, I suppose, were humbled) or come back worse behaved but usually in a much sneakier way. Of course, on enwiki we do eventually manage to ban a significant percentage of really bad players over time; not all of them, but a fair number once they've pushed enough buttons and annoyed enough people and lost their supporters. On some projects, it is essentially impossible to ban community members (as opposed to one-off vandal accounts). Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
