[Wikimedia-l] Re: UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement

[Andreas Kolbe]

Maggie,

As you correctly noted, I lost a verb there. What I meant to say was: "How
can they be prevented from inserting erroneous material without causing
them to doubt their own perceptions etc. in a way that they may well – in
good faith – *feel* is malicious?"

We have this all the time: people with cherished beliefs in alternative
medicine, religious dogma, conspiracy theories etc. *feel* that Wikipedians
are *maliciously* preventing their side from being represented in Wikipedia
etc. – often, unjustifiedly so.

Or think about the current situation in Russia and Ukraine, where people
are subject to different media narratives, depending on where they live,
and picture the world differently as a result. In both cases, this passage
seems apt to encourage people to argue over *who is malicious and who is
gaslighting whom*, rather than talking about content quality and how to
neutrally summarise sources.

There are perfectly good mechanisms now in all major projects for
sanctioning editors that lie or misrepresent sources, without a "law" whose
application requires attributing malice to one party, and which in the
process criminalises and further personalises the commonplace process *of
people trying to change each other's minds.*

As for the other point, whether Wikipedians are still allowed to talk about
Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia or whether Wikipedia has now become "Fight
Club" (as per the movie quote: “The first rule about fight club is you
don't talk about fight club. The second rule about fight club is you don't
talk about fight club.”) I think this point is rather too important to
await clarification in eighteen months' time. I'd rather have it clarified
now.

If even the authors of the UCoC don't know—or aren't prepared to say—what
they meant, then God help us.

Regards,
Andreas

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:54 PM Maggie Dennis  wrote:

> I have been working on the UCoC about as long as anybody, if not as
> intensely as some. Hence, I have some confidence in saying that it is the
> Foundation's role to shepherd the Movement Strategy recommendation to
> reality in creating a baseline of behavioral standards that are
> movement-wide. *I* have opinions about what is and is not good conduct
> and how conduct can and should be reinforced, but the Code of Conduct was
> not written to reflect *my* opinions *or* the Foundation's - the drafting
> committee was a disparate group working to incorporate the feedback of
> volunteers and staff from all across the movement.
>
> The questions you raise strike me as very good discussion good points for
> the planned future policy review. Policies run into gray areas unless they
> are so generic as to be toothless. We will occasionally have hard
> conversations in application when we discover unintended or negative
> consequences.  This is not a new challenge to the movement. I think it's
> one of the things Wikimedia does rather well.
>
> In terms of  "in good faith" and "is malicious" - my understanding of
> malice from both a linguistic and legal sense is that it includes the
> *intent* to do harm. Beyond that, while your question "How can they be
> prevented from inserting erroneous material without causing them to doubt
> their own perceptions etc. in a way that they may well – in good faith – is
> malicious?" - seems to have lost a verb or two perhaps, I think what you
> are asking is how people can be prevented from inserting material without
> maliciously causing them to doubt their own perceptions: [[WP:V]] and
> [[WP:NPOV]] do not require malice in calling for consensus-defined reliable
> sources and avoiding fringe material. That said, again, this strikes me as
> a discussion for the future policy review, and if actual issues arise in
> the meantime I have no doubt discussion will happen.
>
> Best,
> Maggie
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:47 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear Maggie,
>>
>> Could I ask you for help with a couple of things:
>>
>> 1. The UCoC states that "sharing information concerning other
>> contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects" is harassment. Is it
>> really the WMF's intention to prohibit public discussions of controversial
>> editing? To give some examples, in the past English Wikipedia arbitrators
>> commented on cases like the Scientology case or the Indian Institute of
>> Planning and Management (Wifione) case in the press. Following the letter
>> of the UCoC, they would no longer be allowed to do so. Even articles like
>> https://www.cnet.com/science/features/wikipedia-is-at-war-over-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/
>> fall foul of the letter of the UCoC as written today, with every Wikipedian
>> involved in it guilty of harassment, per the UCoC. Is it really your
>> intention to prevent volunteers from discussing anyone's Wikipedia activity
>> outside the project? And if it isn't – could you help us prevail upon your
>> colleagues in the WMF board and the drafting committee to just fix the
>> sentence and have i

[Wikimedia-l] Re: UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement

[Maggie Dennis]

I have been working on the UCoC about as long as anybody, if not as
intensely as some. Hence, I have some confidence in saying that it is the
Foundation's role to shepherd the Movement Strategy recommendation to
reality in creating a baseline of behavioral standards that are
movement-wide. *I* have opinions about what is and is not good conduct and
how conduct can and should be reinforced, but the Code of Conduct was not
written to reflect *my* opinions *or* the Foundation's - the drafting
committee was a disparate group working to incorporate the feedback of
volunteers and staff from all across the movement.

The questions you raise strike me as very good discussion good points for
the planned future policy review. Policies run into gray areas unless they
are so generic as to be toothless. We will occasionally have hard
conversations in application when we discover unintended or negative
consequences.  This is not a new challenge to the movement. I think it's
one of the things Wikimedia does rather well.

In terms of  "in good faith" and "is malicious" - my understanding of
malice from both a linguistic and legal sense is that it includes the
*intent* to do harm. Beyond that, while your question "How can they be
prevented from inserting erroneous material without causing them to doubt
their own perceptions etc. in a way that they may well – in good faith – is
malicious?" - seems to have lost a verb or two perhaps, I think what you
are asking is how people can be prevented from inserting material without
maliciously causing them to doubt their own perceptions: [[WP:V]] and
[[WP:NPOV]] do not require malice in calling for consensus-defined reliable
sources and avoiding fringe material. That said, again, this strikes me as
a discussion for the future policy review, and if actual issues arise in
the meantime I have no doubt discussion will happen.

Best,
Maggie


On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:47 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear Maggie,
>
> Could I ask you for help with a couple of things:
>
> 1. The UCoC states that "sharing information concerning other
> contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects" is harassment. Is it
> really the WMF's intention to prohibit public discussions of controversial
> editing? To give some examples, in the past English Wikipedia arbitrators
> commented on cases like the Scientology case or the Indian Institute of
> Planning and Management (Wifione) case in the press. Following the letter
> of the UCoC, they would no longer be allowed to do so. Even articles like
> https://www.cnet.com/science/features/wikipedia-is-at-war-over-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/
> fall foul of the letter of the UCoC as written today, with every Wikipedian
> involved in it guilty of harassment, per the UCoC. Is it really your
> intention to prevent volunteers from discussing anyone's Wikipedia activity
> outside the project? And if it isn't – could you help us prevail upon your
> colleagues in the WMF board and the drafting committee to just fix the
> sentence and have it unambiguously say what they really mean?
>
> 2. The UCoC states that the following is harassment: "Psychological
> manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions,
> senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force
> someone to behave the way you want." We have, and always have had, and
> always will have, users with sincerely and passionately held fringe beliefs
> about matters of science, politics, religion, etc., as well as users
> lacking basic compentency in the subject area or language they choose to
> work in. How can they be prevented from inserting erroneous material
> without causing them to doubt their own perceptions etc. in a way that they
> may well – in good faith – is malicious?
>
> Andreas
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:02 PM Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
>
>> Let me clarify a few points.
>>
>>- The vote was intended to surface what concerns might exist more
>>broadly in the international communities, not all of whom engage in Meta
>>discussions. Staff were neither asked to convince people to vote for the
>>enforcement guidelines as written nor even encouraged to. They are not 
>> held
>>to account for the speed with which the Guidelines are approved nor for 
>> the
>>language within it. It is their job to facilitate.
>>- The vote threshold is the point at which it is ready to engage
>>the Board for their further directions. We expect to see issues coalescing
>>in a way to help funnel attention to them to provide input 
>> internationally,
>>in multilingual facilitated review.
>>- The intention is indeed that if major issues have been identified
>>in the enforcement guidelines, they will go back to a vote, again and
>>again, until there is a version that is workable, with a period before 
>> each
>>vote for evaluating issues and addressing them.
>>- The UCoC drafters have been international volunteers with
>>  

[Wikimedia-l] Re: UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Maggie,

Could I ask you for help with a couple of things:

1. The UCoC states that "sharing information concerning other contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects" is harassment. Is it really the
WMF's intention to prohibit public discussions of controversial editing? To
give some examples, in the past English Wikipedia arbitrators commented on
cases like the Scientology case or the Indian Institute of Planning and
Management (Wifione) case in the press. Following the letter of the UCoC,
they would no longer be allowed to do so. Even articles like
https://www.cnet.com/science/features/wikipedia-is-at-war-over-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/
fall foul of the letter of the UCoC as written today, with every Wikipedian
involved in it guilty of harassment, per the UCoC. Is it really your
intention to prevent volunteers from discussing anyone's Wikipedia activity
outside the project? And if it isn't – could you help us prevail upon your
colleagues in the WMF board and the drafting committee to just fix the
sentence and have it unambiguously say what they really mean?

2. The UCoC states that the following is harassment: "Psychological
manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions,
senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force
someone to behave the way you want." We have, and always have had, and
always will have, users with sincerely and passionately held fringe beliefs
about matters of science, politics, religion, etc., as well as users
lacking basic compentency in the subject area or language they choose to
work in. How can they be prevented from inserting erroneous material
without causing them to doubt their own perceptions etc. in a way that they
may well – in good faith – is malicious?

Andreas

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:02 PM Maggie Dennis  wrote:

> Let me clarify a few points.
>
>- The vote was intended to surface what concerns might exist more
>broadly in the international communities, not all of whom engage in Meta
>discussions. Staff were neither asked to convince people to vote for the
>enforcement guidelines as written nor even encouraged to. They are not held
>to account for the speed with which the Guidelines are approved nor for the
>language within it. It is their job to facilitate.
>- The vote threshold is the point at which it is ready to engage
>the Board for their further directions. We expect to see issues coalescing
>in a way to help funnel attention to them to provide input internationally,
>in multilingual facilitated review.
>- The intention is indeed that if major issues have been identified in
>the enforcement guidelines, they will go back to a vote, again and again,
>until there is a version that is workable, with a period before each vote
>for evaluating issues and addressing them.
>- The UCoC drafters have been international volunteers with experience
>working on Wikimedia projects from multiple angles and multiple languages.
>They do not all agree on every line as written and have worked very hard to
>come up with a document that can be tested and refined until it is ready to
>be put into use.
>
> It is true that the policy and guideline are not open to editing in the
> same way that some local community policies are. Like the Terms of Use
> itself and the Privacy Policy, neither of which are open to edits, it is a
> document that will have formal methods for modification. In the case of the
> UCoC, the plan is to review it (policy and enforcement guideline) on an
> annual basis to see what is working and what is not, with an understanding
> that behavioral policies can work in unexpected ways and have unexpected
> outcomes and even that what people understand to be acceptable behavior and
> unacceptable behavior evolves over time.
>
> Best,
> Maggie
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:10 AM Yair Rand  wrote:
>
>> Our conduct policies were carefully crafted by hundreds of brilliant
>> people over the course of twenty years, building upon endless experience
>> and detailed discussions that could fill books upon books.
>>
>> The UCoC Project ... seems to be built to supersede all that we've built
>> in this area, with an extremely inadequate replacement. It apparently
>> abandoned the idea of being a "minimal baseline" in favor of including
>> every preferred (and even aspirational) point available. The Enforcement
>> Guidelines thoroughly place the UCoC itself front-and-center, requiring
>> extensive linking and pushing it to be read by everyone (we have a hard
>> enough time getting people to read the existing conduct policies; making
>> everything link to UCoC will definitely drastically reduce the reach of
>> existing policies if not eliminate their presence outright), mandatory
>> pledges/affirmations of the UCoC and compulsory UCoC training (both as
>> prerequisites to sysop participation, conditions which will likely strip
>> the ranks

[Wikimedia-l] Re: UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement

[Maggie Dennis]

Let me clarify a few points.

   - The vote was intended to surface what concerns might exist more
   broadly in the international communities, not all of whom engage in Meta
   discussions. Staff were neither asked to convince people to vote for the
   enforcement guidelines as written nor even encouraged to. They are not held
   to account for the speed with which the Guidelines are approved nor for the
   language within it. It is their job to facilitate.
   - The vote threshold is the point at which it is ready to engage
   the Board for their further directions. We expect to see issues coalescing
   in a way to help funnel attention to them to provide input internationally,
   in multilingual facilitated review.
   - The intention is indeed that if major issues have been identified in
   the enforcement guidelines, they will go back to a vote, again and again,
   until there is a version that is workable, with a period before each vote
   for evaluating issues and addressing them.
   - The UCoC drafters have been international volunteers with experience
   working on Wikimedia projects from multiple angles and multiple languages.
   They do not all agree on every line as written and have worked very hard to
   come up with a document that can be tested and refined until it is ready to
   be put into use.

It is true that the policy and guideline are not open to editing in the
same way that some local community policies are. Like the Terms of Use
itself and the Privacy Policy, neither of which are open to edits, it is a
document that will have formal methods for modification. In the case of the
UCoC, the plan is to review it (policy and enforcement guideline) on an
annual basis to see what is working and what is not, with an understanding
that behavioral policies can work in unexpected ways and have unexpected
outcomes and even that what people understand to be acceptable behavior and
unacceptable behavior evolves over time.

Best,
Maggie

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:10 AM Yair Rand  wrote:

> Our conduct policies were carefully crafted by hundreds of brilliant
> people over the course of twenty years, building upon endless experience
> and detailed discussions that could fill books upon books.
>
> The UCoC Project ... seems to be built to supersede all that we've built
> in this area, with an extremely inadequate replacement. It apparently
> abandoned the idea of being a "minimal baseline" in favor of including
> every preferred (and even aspirational) point available. The Enforcement
> Guidelines thoroughly place the UCoC itself front-and-center, requiring
> extensive linking and pushing it to be read by everyone (we have a hard
> enough time getting people to read the existing conduct policies; making
> everything link to UCoC will definitely drastically reduce the reach of
> existing policies if not eliminate their presence outright), mandatory
> pledges/affirmations of the UCoC and compulsory UCoC training (both as
> prerequisites to sysop participation, conditions which will likely strip
> the ranks).
>
> The UCoC is a text that the community did not write. It remains filled
> with dozens of very serious issues, but volunteers were never invited to
> edit it. Basic attempts at even cleaning up the document's language were
> reverted, as the staff are quite clear that it is not a Wikimedia document
> that community efforts may be directly part of. Larger issues were ignored.
> Even if we were to grant the idea that we would centralize conduct policies
> and remove local variation in acceptable practices, it looks to me that
> this attempt at producing a viable policy did not work. The WMF appointees
> who wrote the UCoC, while they surely worked hard on the document over the
> few months given to write the text, were quite reasonably not capable of
> doing the kind of work we typically expect from the large numbers of
> experienced volunteers who build core policies over the course of a much
> longer time period.
>
> Even taking into account the WMF's extensive campaign to convince people
> that the UCoC was good (and to vote accordingly), and their admission that
> they intended to keep pushing the UCoC indefinitely until a vote passed in
> the direction they wanted, I am surprised and dismayed at the result of the
> vote. The 57% support outcome (or 58.6% if one discounts neutral votes, as
> is often the practice), while well below the amount typically needed to
> establish consensus for a policy, is above the threshold the WMF determined
> to use for their own purposes.
>
> I don't know where we can go from here, or what the Board will do with
> this situation. Numerous contributors have already pointed out that these
> numbers fall clearly under "no consensus". The staff seem to have realized
> that removing sysop tools from a large portion of the admin corps as
> required would be disastrous. One of the more egregious problems present in
> the UCoC text is already likely to be the subject of re

[Wikimedia-l] Re: UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement

[Yair Rand]

Our conduct policies were carefully crafted by hundreds of brilliant people
over the course of twenty years, building upon endless experience and
detailed discussions that could fill books upon books.

The UCoC Project ... seems to be built to supersede all that we've built in
this area, with an extremely inadequate replacement. It apparently
abandoned the idea of being a "minimal baseline" in favor of including
every preferred (and even aspirational) point available. The Enforcement
Guidelines thoroughly place the UCoC itself front-and-center, requiring
extensive linking and pushing it to be read by everyone (we have a hard
enough time getting people to read the existing conduct policies; making
everything link to UCoC will definitely drastically reduce the reach of
existing policies if not eliminate their presence outright), mandatory
pledges/affirmations of the UCoC and compulsory UCoC training (both as
prerequisites to sysop participation, conditions which will likely strip
the ranks).

The UCoC is a text that the community did not write. It remains filled with
dozens of very serious issues, but volunteers were never invited to edit
it. Basic attempts at even cleaning up the document's language were
reverted, as the staff are quite clear that it is not a Wikimedia document
that community efforts may be directly part of. Larger issues were ignored.
Even if we were to grant the idea that we would centralize conduct policies
and remove local variation in acceptable practices, it looks to me that
this attempt at producing a viable policy did not work. The WMF appointees
who wrote the UCoC, while they surely worked hard on the document over the
few months given to write the text, were quite reasonably not capable of
doing the kind of work we typically expect from the large numbers of
experienced volunteers who build core policies over the course of a much
longer time period.

Even taking into account the WMF's extensive campaign to convince people
that the UCoC was good (and to vote accordingly), and their admission that
they intended to keep pushing the UCoC indefinitely until a vote passed in
the direction they wanted, I am surprised and dismayed at the result of the
vote. The 57% support outcome (or 58.6% if one discounts neutral votes, as
is often the practice), while well below the amount typically needed to
establish consensus for a policy, is above the threshold the WMF determined
to use for their own purposes.

I don't know where we can go from here, or what the Board will do with this
situation. Numerous contributors have already pointed out that these
numbers fall clearly under "no consensus". The staff seem to have realized
that removing sysop tools from a large portion of the admin corps as
required would be disastrous. One of the more egregious problems present in
the UCoC text is already likely to be the subject of review following an
open letter by a user group, though many, many others remain largely
unconsidered. Local community preparatory work for dealing with possible
WMF action is ... roughly what I would expect (including the commitments to
not cooperate with UCoC efforts, or to implement them).

This is a pretty bad situation.

-- Yair Rand



‫בתאריך יום ג׳, 5 באפר׳ 2022 ב-17:32 מאת ‪Stella Ng‬‏ <‪s...@wikimedia.org
‬‏>:‬

> Hello All,
>
> We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians who participated in the
> recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
> Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
> .
> At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review
> of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on
> Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
>
>
>-
>
>58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
>
>
>-
>
>Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
>-
>
>Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
>
>
> What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to
> review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are
> automatically complete.
>
> From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments
> provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The
> Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their
> consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and
> examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further
> refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki
> and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for
> revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the
> voter’s responses.
>
> In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project
> team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of
> these proposals include working with community members to form the U4

[Wikimedia-l] Re: UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement

[Samuel Klein]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:25 AM Željko Blaće  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:34 AM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> (sidenote: the fact that this announcement is being made by a WMF staff
>> member probably means that this process is less community driven than I
>> thought. )
>> For a fundamental document like this, I'm surprised to see that there is
>> 40+% opposition. Is there a good understanding of what in the UCoC is
>> causing so much opposition?
>>
>
That's a good question.  I'd like to see a summary of feedback and open
issues.  [NTS: we need an 'Issues' tab alongside Talk pages]
Some common points made in Meta discussions that remain unaddressed:

Oveararching:
* No sufficient mechanism for revision / self-correction   [*and no
'partial support' option, as Z. said. leaving a 'no' as the only way to
push for other revisions*]

Basic concerns:
⁑ Mandatory? training
⁑ Mandatory? pledge‽
⁑ No right to be heard
⁑ Easy to troll + game

Broader concerns:
⁂ Long / confusing text, hard to translate, harder to apply evenly
⁂ Could override rather than support local community governance
⁂ Feels WMF-driven rather than community-driven ...
⁂  ... could become time-eating bureaucracy regardless of benefit


The construction of vote procedure did not allow for partial support (one I
> would also prefer myself) but only binary + comment.
> This is suboptimal for lengthy documents and elaborate (but suboptimal)
> processes.
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AWLZM6ILLNPEOSD2LZSHZY7YRHYX7O3I/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement

[Željko Blaće]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:34 AM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> Thank you Stella,
>

Thank you Lodewijk for voicing a critical perspective. Hope you do not mind
me adding a few points inline.


> Thank you for sharing, I'm looking forward to an evaluation of how this
> vote was executed, so that we can use these methods for more
> topics/decisions in a constructive way. I'm pleased to see how the process
> has seen various types of community engagement, and this seems a good step
> in the right direction. I guess it's hard to expect more turnout than this.
>

I think turnout could have been much better at least in smaller language
communities. From the experience in the projects I am active in there was a
lack of targeted outreach and proactive work, which rendered the whole
process super Meta. Doing text translations and putting notices is neither
enough nor a good way to communicate complexity and urgency to those most
in need of UCoC. New users who joined sub-ideal wikis (not just very toxic)
could not meet voting criteria as easily, though the document was mostly to
address their most basic needs.

(sidenote: the fact that this announcement is being made by a WMF staff
> member probably means that this process is less community driven than I
> thought. )
>
> For a fundamental document like this, I'm surprised to see that there is
> 40+% opposition. Is there a good understanding of what in the UCoC is
> causing so much opposition?
>

Not surprised as vocal critics were constantly present in the
process...their critique was only partly addressed and of course there is
prevailance with older Wikipedians not to change (much) and let alone fast
+ top down.


> I'm asking, because this is supposed to be a universal code, and even if
> this opposition was randomly distributed in our communities, it would be
> quite likely that there is a meaningful number of communities where there
> would be a majority against, if we would split up the vote by community. In
> such a case, I imagine that understanding the reasons why people are
> against, and whether something can be done to mitigate this (or that any
> universal document could likely meet similar opposition) is the least we
> could be expected to attempt.
>

The construction of vote procedure did not allow for partial support (one I
would also prefer myself) but only binary + comment.
This is suboptimal for lengthy documents and elaborate (but suboptimal)
processes.

Warm regards,
Z. Blace


> Warmly,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:32 PM Stella Ng  wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians who participated in the
>> recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
>> Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
>> .
>> At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review
>> of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on
>> Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
>>
>>
>>-
>>
>>58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
>>
>>
>>-
>>
>>Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
>>-
>>
>>Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
>>
>>
>> What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to
>> review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are
>> automatically complete.
>>
>> From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments
>> provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The
>> Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their
>> consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and
>> examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further
>> refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki
>> and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for
>> revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the
>> voter’s responses.
>>
>> In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project
>> team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of
>> these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C
>> Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting
>> conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to
>> be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.
>>
>> Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement
>> guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively
>> work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as
>> presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways
>> over the last year.
>>
>> Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of
>> the Enforcement Guidelines.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Stella Ng on behalf of the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement

[effe iets anders]

Thank you Stella,

Thank you for sharing, I'm looking forward to an evaluation of how this
vote was executed, so that we can use these methods for more
topics/decisions in a constructive way. I'm pleased to see how the process
has seen various types of community engagement, and this seems a good step
in the right direction. I guess it's hard to expect more turnout than this.
(sidenote: the fact that this announcement is being made by a WMF staff
member probably means that this process is less community driven than I
thought. )

For a fundamental document like this, I'm surprised to see that there is
40+% opposition. Is there a good understanding of what in the UCoC is
causing so much opposition?

I'm asking, because this is supposed to be a universal code, and even if
this opposition was randomly distributed in our communities, it would be
quite likely that there is a meaningful number of communities where there
would be a majority against, if we would split up the vote by community. In
such a case, I imagine that understanding the reasons why people are
against, and whether something can be done to mitigate this (or that any
universal document could likely meet similar opposition) is the least we
could be expected to attempt.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:32 PM Stella Ng  wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians who participated in the
> recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
> Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
> .
> At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review
> of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on
> Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
>
>
>-
>
>58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
>
>
>-
>
>Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
>-
>
>Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
>
>
> What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to
> review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are
> automatically complete.
>
> From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments
> provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The
> Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their
> consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and
> examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further
> refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki
> and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for
> revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the
> voter’s responses.
>
> In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project
> team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of
> these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C
> Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting
> conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to
> be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.
>
> Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement
> guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively
> work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as
> presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways
> over the last year.
>
> Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the
> Enforcement Guidelines.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team
>
> Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/B42TE3IZNGKTEPBMORULKNDVJIXM6AC7/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OINZZ7TJO4Q5H4NUVE2GY5U7NJISXSOY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org