Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Pete Forsyth]

On 02/06/2017 12:43 AM, Christophe Henner wrote:


I'm delighted to see this issue getting some attention. I believe the core
of the problem comes from the WMF's identity, from the start, as a
technology company; so shifting in this direction might be an uphill
battle, but I feel strongly that it's the right way to go.

Be careful there, we're agreeing! :D

Joke aside, I'm not sure it is an uphill battle, but that is a shift I
believe we, not just WMF but all of us as a community, need to do. From
mere "tool" to a movement. Which means that the tech and the platform are a
way to enable us  to achieve our goals. But our goals aren't technical,
they're societal. We're a people movement not a tech movement :)
Never a surprise to find agreement with a Wikimedian in general, or with 
you in particular -- but I'm glad to hear it! I am heartened to hear 
that you believe this kind of shift is attainable, and look forward to 
seeing the WMF make some decisive moves toward centering on social 
dynamics before technical innovation.


One more past blog post of mine, which I think expresses the value of 
transitioning away from a tech focus, and toward a social focus: 
https://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-needs-trustee/ (Please ignore the 
framing of "what WM needs in a trustee, I should probably republish this 
to be a bit more generic)


-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Christophe Henner]

Hey,

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Lodewijk 
>> wrote:
>>
>> What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that
>>> are
>>> focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner.
>>>
>> On 01/27/2017 09:54 AM, Danny Horn wrote:
>
>> Your idea for using aggression/harassment scores in admin applications is
>> really interesting; I hadn't thought of that before. Nothing's actually
>> planned right now, just research and conversations, but it's neat to see
>> people already coming up with interesting suggestions. :)
>>
> I'm delighted to see this issue getting some attention. I believe the core
> of the problem comes from the WMF's identity, from the start, as a
> technology company; so shifting in this direction might be an uphill
> battle, but I feel strongly that it's the right way to go.



Be careful there, we're agreeing! :D

Joke aside, I'm not sure it is an uphill battle, but that is a shift I
believe we, not just WMF but all of us as a community, need to do. From
mere "tool" to a movement. Which means that the tech and the platform are a
way to enable us  to achieve our goals. But our goals aren't technical,
they're societal. We're a people movement not a tech movement :)
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Pete Forsyth]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:


What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that are
focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner.

On 01/27/2017 09:54 AM, Danny Horn wrote:

Your idea for using aggression/harassment scores in admin applications is
really interesting; I hadn't thought of that before. Nothing's actually
planned right now, just research and conversations, but it's neat to see
people already coming up with interesting suggestions. :)
I'm delighted to see this issue getting some attention. I believe the 
core of the problem comes from the WMF's identity, from the start, as a 
technology company; so shifting in this direction might be an uphill 
battle, but I feel strongly that it's the right way to go. I'd like to 
highlight my first answer in my brief candidacy for the WMF board in 
2015 [1]:

The distinction between "the community" and "newcomers" is a false and dangerously misleading one. It does not 
accurately reflect reality. I have had numerous students, clients, and friends who believe "the community" or 
"Wikipedia" was unwelcoming; but on closer inspection, the one comment that formed that opinion in fact came from somebody who 
was newer than "the newbie." If civility and collegiality on our sites is an issue -- and it is -- the artificial idea that 
"the community" is mean, and in need of reform, will not move us toward a solution.

Yes, this is a matter the Board should take very seriously. The Board should 
seek the guidance of social scientists and experienced practitioners in social 
movements. Lecturing and assigning blame (example: [2]) may bring applause and 
headlines, but it will not lead to solutions. The solution to this kind of 
problem lies in studying what works well in our communities and others, and 
cultivating leadership. Social practices are a good medium for spreading social 
solutions; we should be more skeptical of technical approaches.


I elaborated on what I see as the WMF's problematic cultivation of a 
culture of blame and exclusion in a blog post. [3]


Coincidentally, the most interesting idea I'm aware of in this realm 
comes from a former Wikia employee I know named...Danny Horn, who 
invented a system to facilitate rapid introductions between new and 
experienced users. It's one we might do well to try out on Wikimedia 
projects, perhaps in connection with the Teahouse.


-Pete

[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/2015_board_election_Peteforsyth_answers#Behavior_towards_new_editors


[2] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy_Wales_at_Wikimania_2014_closing_ceremony_-_annoying_user_good_content_%28cropped%29.jpg


[3] https://wikistrategies.net/divide-and-subjugate/




___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Patrick Earley]

Hi all,


A number of staff and volunteers have been talking about community health
for some time now, and I think it’s a point most can agree with that
technical improvements alone don’t represent a comprehensive approach to
the problem. While we believe they can substantially help those working on
the front lines to deal with issues, it is true that there is much work to
be done on reducing the number and severity of problems on the social side.
As I mentioned in an earlier post
[1]
on the topic, improvements in how we as a community both deal with and
define problem behaviour is needed. The Wikimedia Foundation is working in
other areas as well and hopes to further help communities research what is
working and what is not, and provide support for trialing new approaches
and processes.

The Support and Safety team at the Wikimedia Foundation is currently making
progress on the development of training modules on both keeping events safe

[3] and dealing with online harassment
.[4]
Making use of community input and feedback, we're hoping to publish these
in multiple languages by the beginning of the summer. We know that training
alone will not eliminate harassment, but it will allow for the development
of best practices in handling harassment online and at events, and help
these practices to become more widespread on the Wikimedia projects.

Some challenging harassment situations arise from longstanding unresolved
disputes between contributors. Asaf Bartov has done some innovative work
with communities on identifying more effective methods of resolving
conflicts - you can see his presentation at the recent Metrics meeting
,[2] and there will be a more detailed
report on this initiative next week. Improvement of dispute resolution
practices could be of use on other projects as well, through the Community
Capacity Development program or through other initiatives, which the
Wikimedia Foundation may be able to support.

Our movement also has a variety of different policy approaches to bad
behaviour and different enforcement practices in different communities.
Some of these work well; others, perhaps not so much. The Foundation can
support communities by helping research the effectiveness of these policies
and practices, and we can work with contributors to trial new approaches.

We plan on proposing more of these types of approaches in our upcoming
Annual Plan process over the next few months, and we are working to make
anti-harassment programs more cross-disciplinary and collaborative between
the technical and community teams. As Delphine mentions, affiliates have
already taken a lead on some new initiatives, and we must help scale those
improvements to the larger movement.

I think this thread illustrates how we can continue brainstorming on the
sometimes less-straightforward social approaches to harassment mitigation
(Lodewijk came up with some intriguing ideas above) and find ways forward
that combine effective tools and technical infrastructure with an improved
social environment.

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-December/085668.html

[2] https://youtu.be/6fF4xLHkZe4?t=19m

[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_modules/Keeping_events_safe/drafting
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_modules/Online_harassment/drafting

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Delphine Ménard 
wrote:

> On 27 January 2017 at 18:17, Lodewijk  wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that
> are
> > focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner.
> I'm
> > not sure how that would work out in practice,
>
> [snip]
>
> But I do want to express my hope that somewhere in the
> > Foundation (and affiliates), work is being done to also look at
> preventing
> > bullying and harassment - besides handling it effectively. And that you
> > maybe keep that work in mind, when developing these tools. Some overlap
> may
> > exist - for example, I could imagine that if the
> > harassment-identificationtool is reliable enough, it could trigger
> warnings
> > to users before they save their edit, or the scores could be used in
> admin
> > applications (and for others with example-functions). A more social
> > approach that is unrelated, would be to train community members on how to
> > respond to poisonous behavior. I'm just thinking out loud here, and
> others
> > may have much better approaches in mind (or actually work on them).
>
> Actually Lodewijk, it's happening not too far from you. Wikimedia
> Nederland [1] has been working on this for a while, quietly, with
> small samples and small steps, but with good results and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Delphine Ménard]

On 27 January 2017 at 18:17, Lodewijk  wrote:
[snip]

> What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that are
> focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner. I'm
> not sure how that would work out in practice,

[snip]

But I do want to express my hope that somewhere in the
> Foundation (and affiliates), work is being done to also look at preventing
> bullying and harassment - besides handling it effectively. And that you
> maybe keep that work in mind, when developing these tools. Some overlap may
> exist - for example, I could imagine that if the
> harassment-identificationtool is reliable enough, it could trigger warnings
> to users before they save their edit, or the scores could be used in admin
> applications (and for others with example-functions). A more social
> approach that is unrelated, would be to train community members on how to
> respond to poisonous behavior. I'm just thinking out loud here, and others
> may have much better approaches in mind (or actually work on them).

Actually Lodewijk, it's happening not too far from you. Wikimedia
Nederland [1] has been working on this for a while, quietly, with
small samples and small steps, but with good results and most
importantly, a lot of hope and resilience to pursue this really really
hard work.

Delphine

[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2016-2017_round1/Wikimedia_Nederland/Proposal_form#Program_1:_Community_health

-- 
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Danny Horn]

Oh, that's a really good point. For the product analyst job, we're hoping
to hire someone who's already done research on online harassment, and can
help us to learn from other people's approaches.

Your idea for using aggression/harassment scores in admin applications is
really interesting; I hadn't thought of that before. Nothing's actually
planned right now, just research and conversations, but it's neat to see
people already coming up with interesting suggestions. :)



On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Thanks Danny for the elaboration.
>
> I don't want to contest the value of this work at all - sorry if that
> seemed implied. I think it's an effort that may be quite necessary -
> especially in some communities.
>
> The set of tools you're describing to be developed, seem all to be related
> to a process that eventually leads to blocking people off our sites. That
> is what triggered my response. This process may be necessary in a number of
> cases (unfortunately), and helpful for the community health. But it is all
> 'after the fact' - once harassment has taken place.
>
> What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that are
> focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner. I'm
> not sure how that would work out in practice, I don't have the solution
> (although some ideas have been bouncing around). This work seems related to
> bullying in general - which happens unfortunately in schools and
> communities around the world - and research on this topic may help identify
> methods that could have a preventive effect. I have yet to see a 100%
> effective program, but it may strengthen the efforts for a healthier
> community.
>
> I can see that where these approaches are still investigated, or
> non-technical, the community tech team may be less suitable for
> implementing them. But I do want to express my hope that somewhere in the
> Foundation (and affiliates), work is being done to also look at preventing
> bullying and harassment - besides handling it effectively. And that you
> maybe keep that work in mind, when developing these tools. Some overlap may
> exist - for example, I could imagine that if the
> harassment-identificationtool is reliable enough, it could trigger warnings
> to users before they save their edit, or the scores could be used in admin
> applications (and for others with example-functions). A more social
> approach that is unrelated, would be to train community members on how to
> respond to poisonous behavior. I'm just thinking out loud here, and others
> may have much better approaches in mind (or actually work on them).
>
> Hope that clarifies a bit,
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-01-27 17:24 GMT+01:00 Danny Horn :
>
> > The project has four focus areas, and blocking is just one of them.
> Here's
> > the whole picture:
> >
> > * Detection and prevention: Using machine learning to help flag
> situations
> > for admin review -- both text that looks like it's harassing and
> > aggressive, as well as modeling patterns of user interaction, like
> stalking
> > and hounding, before the situation gets out of control.
> >
> > * Reporting: Building a new system to encourage editors to reach out for
> > help, in a way that's less chaotic and stressful than the current system.
> >
> > * Evaluation: Giving admins and others tools that help them evaluate
> > harassment cases, and make good decisions.
> >
> > * Blocking: Making it more difficult for banned users to come back.
> >
> > We'll be actively working on all four areas. There aren't a ton of
> details
> > right now about exactly what we'll build, for a couple reasons. The
> product
> > manager and the analyst haven't started yet, and the research that they
> do
> > will generate a lot of new ideas and insights. Also, we're going to work
> > closely with the community -- talking to people with different roles and
> > perspectives, and making plans in collaboration with contributors who are
> > interested in these issues. So there's lots of work and thinking and
> > consulting to do.
> >
> > But here's one idea that I'm personally excited about, which I think
> helps
> > to explain why we're focusing on tools:
> >
> > Right now, when two people end up at AN/I, the only way to figure out
> whose
> > version of the story to believe is by looking at individual, cherrypicked
> > diffs. You can also look through the two editors' contributions, but if
> > they're both active editors and the problem has been going on for a
> while,
> > then it's very difficult to get a sense of what's going on. Sometimes it
> > really matters who did what first, and you have to correlate the two
> > contributions logs, and pay attention to timestamps.
> >
> > The idea is: build a tool that helps admins (and others) follow the
> "story"
> > of this conflict. Look for the pages where the two editors have
> interacted,
> > and show a timeline that helps 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Lodewijk]

Thanks Danny for the elaboration.

I don't want to contest the value of this work at all - sorry if that
seemed implied. I think it's an effort that may be quite necessary -
especially in some communities.

The set of tools you're describing to be developed, seem all to be related
to a process that eventually leads to blocking people off our sites. That
is what triggered my response. This process may be necessary in a number of
cases (unfortunately), and helpful for the community health. But it is all
'after the fact' - once harassment has taken place.

What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that are
focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner. I'm
not sure how that would work out in practice, I don't have the solution
(although some ideas have been bouncing around). This work seems related to
bullying in general - which happens unfortunately in schools and
communities around the world - and research on this topic may help identify
methods that could have a preventive effect. I have yet to see a 100%
effective program, but it may strengthen the efforts for a healthier
community.

I can see that where these approaches are still investigated, or
non-technical, the community tech team may be less suitable for
implementing them. But I do want to express my hope that somewhere in the
Foundation (and affiliates), work is being done to also look at preventing
bullying and harassment - besides handling it effectively. And that you
maybe keep that work in mind, when developing these tools. Some overlap may
exist - for example, I could imagine that if the
harassment-identificationtool is reliable enough, it could trigger warnings
to users before they save their edit, or the scores could be used in admin
applications (and for others with example-functions). A more social
approach that is unrelated, would be to train community members on how to
respond to poisonous behavior. I'm just thinking out loud here, and others
may have much better approaches in mind (or actually work on them).

Hope that clarifies a bit,

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-01-27 17:24 GMT+01:00 Danny Horn :

> The project has four focus areas, and blocking is just one of them. Here's
> the whole picture:
>
> * Detection and prevention: Using machine learning to help flag situations
> for admin review -- both text that looks like it's harassing and
> aggressive, as well as modeling patterns of user interaction, like stalking
> and hounding, before the situation gets out of control.
>
> * Reporting: Building a new system to encourage editors to reach out for
> help, in a way that's less chaotic and stressful than the current system.
>
> * Evaluation: Giving admins and others tools that help them evaluate
> harassment cases, and make good decisions.
>
> * Blocking: Making it more difficult for banned users to come back.
>
> We'll be actively working on all four areas. There aren't a ton of details
> right now about exactly what we'll build, for a couple reasons. The product
> manager and the analyst haven't started yet, and the research that they do
> will generate a lot of new ideas and insights. Also, we're going to work
> closely with the community -- talking to people with different roles and
> perspectives, and making plans in collaboration with contributors who are
> interested in these issues. So there's lots of work and thinking and
> consulting to do.
>
> But here's one idea that I'm personally excited about, which I think helps
> to explain why we're focusing on tools:
>
> Right now, when two people end up at AN/I, the only way to figure out whose
> version of the story to believe is by looking at individual, cherrypicked
> diffs. You can also look through the two editors' contributions, but if
> they're both active editors and the problem has been going on for a while,
> then it's very difficult to get a sense of what's going on. Sometimes it
> really matters who did what first, and you have to correlate the two
> contributions logs, and pay attention to timestamps.
>
> The idea is: build a tool that helps admins (and others) follow the "story"
> of this conflict. Look for the pages where the two editors have interacted,
> and show a timeline that helps you see what happened first, how they
> responded, and how the drama unfolded. That could reduce the time cost of
> investigating and evaluating considerably, making it much easier for an
> admin or mediator to get involved.
>
> There are lots of UI questions about how that would work and what it would
> look like, but I don't think it would be too difficult on the tech side.
> The information is already there in the contributions; it's just difficult
> to correlate by hand.
>
> Assuming it works, that tool could have a lot of good outcomes. Admins
> would be more likely to take on harassment cases, because there'd be
> greater return for the time investment. It would take some of the burden
> off the target, so they don't 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Anna Stillwell]

Right on. Your enthusiasm is infectious, Danny. Congratulations to all who
are making this a reality.

/a

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Danny Horn  wrote:

> The project has four focus areas, and blocking is just one of them. Here's
> the whole picture:
>
> * Detection and prevention: Using machine learning to help flag situations
> for admin review -- both text that looks like it's harassing and
> aggressive, as well as modeling patterns of user interaction, like stalking
> and hounding, before the situation gets out of control.
>
> * Reporting: Building a new system to encourage editors to reach out for
> help, in a way that's less chaotic and stressful than the current system.
>
> * Evaluation: Giving admins and others tools that help them evaluate
> harassment cases, and make good decisions.
>
> * Blocking: Making it more difficult for banned users to come back.
>
> We'll be actively working on all four areas. There aren't a ton of details
> right now about exactly what we'll build, for a couple reasons. The product
> manager and the analyst haven't started yet, and the research that they do
> will generate a lot of new ideas and insights. Also, we're going to work
> closely with the community -- talking to people with different roles and
> perspectives, and making plans in collaboration with contributors who are
> interested in these issues. So there's lots of work and thinking and
> consulting to do.
>
> But here's one idea that I'm personally excited about, which I think helps
> to explain why we're focusing on tools:
>
> Right now, when two people end up at AN/I, the only way to figure out whose
> version of the story to believe is by looking at individual, cherrypicked
> diffs. You can also look through the two editors' contributions, but if
> they're both active editors and the problem has been going on for a while,
> then it's very difficult to get a sense of what's going on. Sometimes it
> really matters who did what first, and you have to correlate the two
> contributions logs, and pay attention to timestamps.
>
> The idea is: build a tool that helps admins (and others) follow the "story"
> of this conflict. Look for the pages where the two editors have interacted,
> and show a timeline that helps you see what happened first, how they
> responded, and how the drama unfolded. That could reduce the time cost of
> investigating and evaluating considerably, making it much easier for an
> admin or mediator to get involved.
>
> There are lots of UI questions about how that would work and what it would
> look like, but I don't think it would be too difficult on the tech side.
> The information is already there in the contributions; it's just difficult
> to correlate by hand.
>
> Assuming it works, that tool could have a lot of good outcomes. Admins
> would be more likely to take on harassment cases, because there'd be
> greater return for the time investment. It would take some of the burden
> off the target, so they don't have to figure out which individual diffs
> they should provide in order to make their case. Also, it would be harder
> for harassers to get away with mistreating people, because they wouldn't be
> able to hide behind a smokescreen of random diffs.
>
> As folks on this thread have said, there are lots of other components to
> tackling the harassment problems. There will probably be groups of admins
> and others who are especially interested in helping with the reporting and
> evaluation, and the Foundation could provide trainings and resources for
> those groups. Making changes to the reporting system will involve a lot of
> community discussions about policies and competing values. Some of those
> conversations and plans will probably be led by the Foundation, and some of
> them will arise naturally within the community.
>
> For this specific team -- the Community Tech product team, working with the
> community advocate -- our focus is on doing research and building tools
> that will support those conversations and plans. We're not going to take
> over the community's proper role in setting policy, or making decisions
> about how to handle cases.
>
> To Fæ's point, the community will determine the social and cultural
> decisions about how to treat harassment cases, and our team's job is to
> build software that will help to put those decisions into practice.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > On 27 January 2017 at 09:21, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
> > ...
> > > Do I understand correctly that this particular initiative will focus on
> > > fighting harassment, and not necessarily on preventing it? Basically
> in a
> > > similar pattern that vandalism is fought on most wikipedia projects?
> > >
> > > I really hope that prevention, education and (social) training will
> > become
> > > a major point in the overall agenda, but I can imagine that we can't
> pay
> > > all that from the single grant 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Danny Horn]

The project has four focus areas, and blocking is just one of them. Here's
the whole picture:

* Detection and prevention: Using machine learning to help flag situations
for admin review -- both text that looks like it's harassing and
aggressive, as well as modeling patterns of user interaction, like stalking
and hounding, before the situation gets out of control.

* Reporting: Building a new system to encourage editors to reach out for
help, in a way that's less chaotic and stressful than the current system.

* Evaluation: Giving admins and others tools that help them evaluate
harassment cases, and make good decisions.

* Blocking: Making it more difficult for banned users to come back.

We'll be actively working on all four areas. There aren't a ton of details
right now about exactly what we'll build, for a couple reasons. The product
manager and the analyst haven't started yet, and the research that they do
will generate a lot of new ideas and insights. Also, we're going to work
closely with the community -- talking to people with different roles and
perspectives, and making plans in collaboration with contributors who are
interested in these issues. So there's lots of work and thinking and
consulting to do.

But here's one idea that I'm personally excited about, which I think helps
to explain why we're focusing on tools:

Right now, when two people end up at AN/I, the only way to figure out whose
version of the story to believe is by looking at individual, cherrypicked
diffs. You can also look through the two editors' contributions, but if
they're both active editors and the problem has been going on for a while,
then it's very difficult to get a sense of what's going on. Sometimes it
really matters who did what first, and you have to correlate the two
contributions logs, and pay attention to timestamps.

The idea is: build a tool that helps admins (and others) follow the "story"
of this conflict. Look for the pages where the two editors have interacted,
and show a timeline that helps you see what happened first, how they
responded, and how the drama unfolded. That could reduce the time cost of
investigating and evaluating considerably, making it much easier for an
admin or mediator to get involved.

There are lots of UI questions about how that would work and what it would
look like, but I don't think it would be too difficult on the tech side.
The information is already there in the contributions; it's just difficult
to correlate by hand.

Assuming it works, that tool could have a lot of good outcomes. Admins
would be more likely to take on harassment cases, because there'd be
greater return for the time investment. It would take some of the burden
off the target, so they don't have to figure out which individual diffs
they should provide in order to make their case. Also, it would be harder
for harassers to get away with mistreating people, because they wouldn't be
able to hide behind a smokescreen of random diffs.

As folks on this thread have said, there are lots of other components to
tackling the harassment problems. There will probably be groups of admins
and others who are especially interested in helping with the reporting and
evaluation, and the Foundation could provide trainings and resources for
those groups. Making changes to the reporting system will involve a lot of
community discussions about policies and competing values. Some of those
conversations and plans will probably be led by the Foundation, and some of
them will arise naturally within the community.

For this specific team -- the Community Tech product team, working with the
community advocate -- our focus is on doing research and building tools
that will support those conversations and plans. We're not going to take
over the community's proper role in setting policy, or making decisions
about how to handle cases.

To Fæ's point, the community will determine the social and cultural
decisions about how to treat harassment cases, and our team's job is to
build software that will help to put those decisions into practice.





On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 27 January 2017 at 09:21, Lodewijk  wrote:
> ...
> > Do I understand correctly that this particular initiative will focus on
> > fighting harassment, and not necessarily on preventing it? Basically in a
> > similar pattern that vandalism is fought on most wikipedia projects?
> >
> > I really hope that prevention, education and (social) training will
> become
> > a major point in the overall agenda, but I can imagine that we can't pay
> > all that from the single grant :) So I just would like to place it in the
> > proper context.
> >
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
>
> +1 Spot on.
>
> The plan appears to hinge on blocks as the outcome. Based on cases of
> long term harassment targeted at individuals which invariably involved
> off-wiki doxxing or contacting friends and family members of their
> target, blocking 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Fæ]

On 27 January 2017 at 09:21, Lodewijk  wrote:
...
> Do I understand correctly that this particular initiative will focus on
> fighting harassment, and not necessarily on preventing it? Basically in a
> similar pattern that vandalism is fought on most wikipedia projects?
>
> I really hope that prevention, education and (social) training will become
> a major point in the overall agenda, but I can imagine that we can't pay
> all that from the single grant :) So I just would like to place it in the
> proper context.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk

+1 Spot on.

The plan appears to hinge on blocks as the outcome. Based on cases of
long term harassment targeted at individuals which invariably involved
off-wiki doxxing or contacting friends and family members of their
target, blocking Wikimedia accounts is an approach that may remove
Wikimedia projects as a platform but does little to help reform the
person causing harassment. I would rather see systems that include
reaching out to the apparent harasser to help them recognize and deal
with their anger or obsessive issues. Treating badly behaved
individuals as the "other", without aiming for a lasting resolution,
means we are back to the old days of telling the unfortunate
target/victim to change their identity or grow a thicker skin as the
on-line harassment may never stop.

Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Lodewijk]

Hi Johan,

Thanks for the link, very insightful indeed. Glad to see these documents
public

Do I understand correctly that this particular initiative will focus on
fighting harassment, and not necessarily on preventing it? Basically in a
similar pattern that vandalism is fought on most wikipedia projects?

I really hope that prevention, education and (social) training will become
a major point in the overall agenda, but I can imagine that we can't pay
all that from the single grant :) So I just would like to place it in the
proper context.

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-01-27 10:14 GMT+01:00 Johan Jönsson :

> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > These are all very nice sentiments. But they're phrased in very vague
> ways.
> >
> > Is there anywhere we can see the actual concrete plan for the use of
> these
> > funds?
> >
> > Todd
>
> Hi Todd,
>
> You can take a look at the grant proposal (also linked to from
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative) here:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/
> Wikimedia_Foundation_grant_proposal_-_Anti-Harassment_
> Tools_For_Wikimedia_Projects_-_2017.pdf
>
> Pages 6–14 should be relevant.
>
> //Johan Jönsson
> --
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

First, I am of course very happy about the attention and support from Mr.
Newmark.

But I am wondering about the special focus to "tools"; harassment is a
problem on the social level, not the technical one. Also, after all those
years in which we talk about harassment, I find it difficult to trust our
Wikimedia institutions to come with an effective approach...

Kind regards





2017-01-27 3:47 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen :

> These are all very nice sentiments. But they're phrased in very vague ways.
>
> Is there anywhere we can see the actual concrete plan for the use of these
> funds?
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Samantha Lien 
> wrote:
>
> > This press release is also available online here:
> >  https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/
> > Wikimedia_Foundation_receives_$500,000_from_the_Craig_
> > Newmark_Foundation_and_craigslist_Charitable_Fund_to_
> > support_a_healthy_and_inclusive_Wikimedia_community
> >  Wikimedia_Foundation_receives_$500,000_from_the_Craig_
> Newmark_Foundation_and_craigslist_Charitable_Fund_to_
> support_a_healthy_and_inclusive_Wikimedia_community>
> >
> > And as a blog post on the Wikimedia blog here:
> >
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/26/community-health-initiative-grant/
> >
> >
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation receives $500,000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation
> > and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive
> Wikimedia
> > community
> >
> > Grant supports development of more advanced tools for volunteers and
> staff
> > to reduce harassing behavior on Wikipedia and block harassers from the
> site
> >
> > SAN FRANCISCO — January 26, 2017 — Today, the Wikimedia Foundation
> > announced the launch of a community health initiative to address
> harassment
> > and toxic behavior on Wikipedia, with initial funding of US$500,000 from
> > the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund. The two seed
> > grants, each US$250,000, will support the development of tools for
> > volunteer editors and staff to reduce harassment on Wikipedia and block
> > harassers.
> >
> > Approximately 40% of internet users
> > , and as many
> > as 70% of younger users have personally experienced harassment online,
> with
> > regional studies showing rates as high as 76%
> >  releases/2016/symantec_0309_01>
> > for young women. While harassment differs across the internet, on
> Wikipedia
> > and other Wikimedia projects, harassment has been shown to reduce
> > participation on the sites. More than 50%
> >  Harassment_Survey_2015_-_Results_Report.pdf>
> > of people who reported experiencing harassment also reported decreasing
> > their participation in the Wikimedia community.
> >
> > Volunteer editors on Wikipedia are often the first line of response for
> > finding and addressing harassment on Wikipedia. "Trolling
> > ," "doxxing
> > ," and other menacing behaviors
> are
> > burdens to Wikipedia's contributors, impeding their ability to do the
> > writing and editing that makes Wikipedia so comprehensive and useful.
> This
> > program seeks to respond to requests from editors over the years for
> better
> > tools and support for responding to harassment and toxic behavior.
> >
> > “To ensure Wikipedia’s vitality, people of good will need to work
> together
> > to prevent trolling, harassment and cyber-bullying from interfering with
> > the common good,” said Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist. “To that
> end,
> > I'm supporting the work of the Wikimedia Foundation towards the
> prevention
> > of harassment.”
> >
> > The initiative is part of a commitment to community health at the
> > Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia
> > and the other Wikimedia projects, in collaboration with the global
> > community of volunteer editors. In 2015, the Foundation published its
> first
> > Harassment Survey
> >  about
> > the nature of the issue in order to identify key areas of concern. In
> > November 2016, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees issued a
> > statement of support
> >  Board_noticeboard/November_2016_-_Statement_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_
> Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces>
> > calling for a more “proactive” approach to addressing harassment as a
> > barrier to healthy, inclusive communities on Wikipedia.
> >
> > "If we want everyone to share in the sum of all knowledge, we need to
> make
> > sure everyone feels welcome,” said Katherine Maher, Executive Director of
> > the Wikimedia Foundation. “This grant supports a healthy 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Johan Jönsson]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> These are all very nice sentiments. But they're phrased in very vague ways.
>
> Is there anywhere we can see the actual concrete plan for the use of these
> funds?
>
> Todd

Hi Todd,

You can take a look at the grant proposal (also linked to from
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative) here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Wikimedia_Foundation_grant_proposal_-_Anti-Harassment_Tools_For_Wikimedia_Projects_-_2017.pdf

Pages 6–14 should be relevant.

//Johan Jönsson
--

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Todd Allen]

These are all very nice sentiments. But they're phrased in very vague ways.

Is there anywhere we can see the actual concrete plan for the use of these
funds?

Todd

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Samantha Lien  wrote:

> This press release is also available online here:
>  https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/
> Wikimedia_Foundation_receives_$500,000_from_the_Craig_
> Newmark_Foundation_and_craigslist_Charitable_Fund_to_
> support_a_healthy_and_inclusive_Wikimedia_community
> 
>
> And as a blog post on the Wikimedia blog here:
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/26/community-health-initiative-grant/
>
>
>
> Wikimedia Foundation receives $500,000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation
> and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive Wikimedia
> community
>
> Grant supports development of more advanced tools for volunteers and staff
> to reduce harassing behavior on Wikipedia and block harassers from the site
>
> SAN FRANCISCO — January 26, 2017 — Today, the Wikimedia Foundation
> announced the launch of a community health initiative to address harassment
> and toxic behavior on Wikipedia, with initial funding of US$500,000 from
> the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund. The two seed
> grants, each US$250,000, will support the development of tools for
> volunteer editors and staff to reduce harassment on Wikipedia and block
> harassers.
>
> Approximately 40% of internet users
> , and as many
> as 70% of younger users have personally experienced harassment online, with
> regional studies showing rates as high as 76%
> 
> for young women. While harassment differs across the internet, on Wikipedia
> and other Wikimedia projects, harassment has been shown to reduce
> participation on the sites. More than 50%
> 
> of people who reported experiencing harassment also reported decreasing
> their participation in the Wikimedia community.
>
> Volunteer editors on Wikipedia are often the first line of response for
> finding and addressing harassment on Wikipedia. "Trolling
> ," "doxxing
> ," and other menacing behaviors are
> burdens to Wikipedia's contributors, impeding their ability to do the
> writing and editing that makes Wikipedia so comprehensive and useful. This
> program seeks to respond to requests from editors over the years for better
> tools and support for responding to harassment and toxic behavior.
>
> “To ensure Wikipedia’s vitality, people of good will need to work together
> to prevent trolling, harassment and cyber-bullying from interfering with
> the common good,” said Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist. “To that end,
> I'm supporting the work of the Wikimedia Foundation towards the prevention
> of harassment.”
>
> The initiative is part of a commitment to community health at the
> Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia
> and the other Wikimedia projects, in collaboration with the global
> community of volunteer editors. In 2015, the Foundation published its first
> Harassment Survey
>  about
> the nature of the issue in order to identify key areas of concern. In
> November 2016, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees issued a
> statement of support
> 
> calling for a more “proactive” approach to addressing harassment as a
> barrier to healthy, inclusive communities on Wikipedia.
>
> "If we want everyone to share in the sum of all knowledge, we need to make
> sure everyone feels welcome,” said Katherine Maher, Executive Director of
> the Wikimedia Foundation. “This grant supports a healthy culture for the
> volunteer editors of Wikipedia, so that more people can take part in
> sharing knowledge with the world."
>
> The generous funding from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist
> Charitable Fund will support the initial phase of a program
>  to
> strengthen existing tools and develop additional tools to more quickly
> identify potentially harassing behavior, and help volunteer administrators
> evaluate harassment reports and respond effectively. These improvements
> will be made in close collaboration with the Wikimedia community to
> evaluate, test, and give feedback on the