Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Stuart Prior]

Hello all,

In response to this I wrote something in defence of friendly space
policies, as I think we are looking at them the wrong way.
It's far from complete but just a few ideas.


TL:DR: Safe space policies are important,
but
being both less defensive, and less judgemental
about infractions,
is good
, and the only way we learn.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Battleofalma/What_did_I_do_wrong

Thanks

S

On 15 August 2018 at 04:39, Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> In the world we have a big problem of violence against women, but also
> towards to the LGBT+ community and I think these problems are a serious
> problem we all can recognise. To create clarity we have a Friendly Space
> Policy what clearly defines what is unacceptable, something that we all can
> recognise.
>
>
> But what should happen when somebody feels uncomfortable, while there is
> no violation of the Friendly Space Policy?
>
> And in addition, if that somebody does not indicate to feel uncomfortable,
> so the other person has no way to know someone is uncomfortable. And thus
> can't fix/help to remove the uncomfortable part of the situation.
>
>
>
> If then actions are taken towards the person who apparently created an
> uncomfortable feeling without knowing that, who also got no indication as
> such to fix, then this raises to me a lot of questions.
> What then happens is that the Trust and Safety team creates for that
> person an unsafe environment.
> And not just for this person, but to anyone who has interaction with
> another person.
>
> And the more interactions you have with people, the higher is the risk
> that there is someone feeling uncomfortable.
> Especially those people, maybe you have seen them, that walk around to
> help others, answer questions, etc, (there are various of them at
> Wikimania), especially those people are at high risk.
>
> If *then* the Trust and Safety team is taking action, something goes
> wrong, then an event is no longer safe.
>
>
>
>
> > What we can do as a community is debate *principles*, i.e. the policy
> itself.
>
> I think it is not the policy that is the actual subject for debate, but it
> is about how the policy is used, or otherwise the way how we deal as
> movement with this kind of situations.
> What are the general principles according how the trust and Safety team
> acts. Those can be open and should not be a black box.
>
> A second thing (or maybe the same) that is something we can talk about is
> what do we do as movement when somebody feels uncomfortable (as described)?
> How can we help this person with this feeling to be comfortable again?
>
>
> Romaine
>
>
>
> 2018-07-29 20:57 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :
>
>> On 29 July 2018 at 18:27, Chris Keating 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Lots of opinions from people going "well this person didn't harass
>> > me" or "I don't know the specifics but maybe it's just cultural
>> > differences"
>>
>> I'm one of the people who commented, early on, on that original
>> thread; and I don't believe that describes my post.
>>
>> I did note that there was prima face evidence that a community member
>> who had a disability (my word for it; not theirs) appeared to have
>> been discriminated against, at least in part, due to the effects of
>> that disability. I would expect or "safe space" policy to ensure that
>> this did not happen.
>>
>> I have not seen a single response, to date, that has addressed this
>> point; either specifically or in general.
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>


-- 
*Stuart Prior*
*Project Coordinator*
*Wikimedia UK*
+44 20 372 0769
+44 7879 015 385 (text me otherwise I might screen the call)

Wikimedia UK is the national chapter for the global Wikimedia open
knowledge movement. We rely on donations from individuals to support our
work to make knowledge open for all. Have you considered supporting
Wikimedia? https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ

.

Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The
Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent
non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility
for its contents.*
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Romaine Wiki]

In the world we have a big problem of violence against women, but also
towards to the LGBT+ community and I think these problems are a serious
problem we all can recognise. To create clarity we have a Friendly Space
Policy what clearly defines what is unacceptable, something that we all can
recognise.


But what should happen when somebody feels uncomfortable, while there is no
violation of the Friendly Space Policy?

And in addition, if that somebody does not indicate to feel uncomfortable,
so the other person has no way to know someone is uncomfortable. And thus
can't fix/help to remove the uncomfortable part of the situation.



If then actions are taken towards the person who apparently created an
uncomfortable feeling without knowing that, who also got no indication as
such to fix, then this raises to me a lot of questions.
What then happens is that the Trust and Safety team creates for that person
an unsafe environment.
And not just for this person, but to anyone who has interaction with
another person.

And the more interactions you have with people, the higher is the risk that
there is someone feeling uncomfortable.
Especially those people, maybe you have seen them, that walk around to help
others, answer questions, etc, (there are various of them at Wikimania),
especially those people are at high risk.

If *then* the Trust and Safety team is taking action, something goes wrong,
then an event is no longer safe.




> What we can do as a community is debate *principles*, i.e. the policy
itself.

I think it is not the policy that is the actual subject for debate, but it
is about how the policy is used, or otherwise the way how we deal as
movement with this kind of situations.
What are the general principles according how the trust and Safety team
acts. Those can be open and should not be a black box.

A second thing (or maybe the same) that is something we can talk about is
what do we do as movement when somebody feels uncomfortable (as described)?
How can we help this person with this feeling to be comfortable again?


Romaine



2018-07-29 20:57 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :

> On 29 July 2018 at 18:27, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > Lots of opinions from people going "well this person didn't harass
> > me" or "I don't know the specifics but maybe it's just cultural
> > differences"
>
> I'm one of the people who commented, early on, on that original
> thread; and I don't believe that describes my post.
>
> I did note that there was prima face evidence that a community member
> who had a disability (my word for it; not theirs) appeared to have
> been discriminated against, at least in part, due to the effects of
> that disability. I would expect or "safe space" policy to ensure that
> this did not happen.
>
> I have not seen a single response, to date, that has addressed this
> point; either specifically or in general.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Chris Keating]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 4:11 AM cs  wrote:
>
> I’ve been to  a great  many  international  conferences in  my  career -  but 
>  not  so many  since I  retired. I  can’t  recall  people wearing  ‘Don’t  
> touch me’,  ‘Don’t  photo me’, ‘Don’t  come near me’, ‘Don’t  talk  to  me’ 
> badges. Do  they  do  it  nowadays already?

No, they don't. This proposal would make Wikimania the first
conference to outsource basic social awareness to a set of coloured
spots stuck to the front of badges.

I can't say it would be a positive change, not least because people
would start blaming harrassment on people not wearing the right
coloured badge.

Chris

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Concerning photographs, it would be easier if they were generally limited
to some kind of "official photographers" & group photographs during those
events. I'm new to Wikimedia events, and only attended two, last WMCON in
Berlin and Big Fat Brussels. In Brussels we were asked to not photograph
the participants unless it was explicitly allowed (such as in group
photographs), which I found quite reasonable - and, frankly, it was a
relief.

As for touching, I'm a bit shy myself, and feel somewhat uneasy when
someone hugs or touches me, but I would never ask someone to not do what
generally is a genuine proof of affection & friendship, let alone denounce
that person. When it's too close that it becomes embarassing, one can just
ask the other to stay a bit farther. We just need to ask, to communicate -
it doesn't seem that hard, that difficult. And doesn't seem at all the kind
of thing that would grant a report to the Safety team, and even less some
kind of reaction from them.

All the best,

Paulo

2018-08-06 10:21 GMT+01:00 Pierre-Selim :

> Le lun. 6 août 2018 à 09:34, CS  a écrit :
>
>> I concede your points, but people who don't want to be photographed at an
>> event which of its very nature  is much photographed, just need to be aware
>> of that and stay out of range of the viewfinder. That is not a Herculean
>> task.
>>
>
> The goal of Wikimania is not to produce pictures of Wikimania, but to
> attend to conferences and share experiences, build new projects with
> others, etc.
> And Even with the OK photo lanyard, it does not mean people like to be
> photographed in ridiculous situation or when eating food, etc.
>
> So this is not an herculean task, but it's up to the photographer to get
> it right, not the other way around.
>
> --
> Pierre-Selim
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Pierre-Selim]

Le lun. 6 août 2018 à 09:34, CS  a écrit :

> I concede your points, but people who don't want to be photographed at an
> event which of its very nature  is much photographed, just need to be aware
> of that and stay out of range of the viewfinder. That is not a Herculean
> task.
>

The goal of Wikimania is not to produce pictures of Wikimania, but to
attend to conferences and share experiences, build new projects with
others, etc.
And Even with the OK photo lanyard, it does not mean people like to be
photographed in ridiculous situation or when eating food, etc.

So this is not an herculean task, but it's up to the photographer to get it
right, not the other way around.

-- 
Pierre-Selim
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Anirudh S. Bhati]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 2:34 PM CS  wrote:

> I concede your points, but people who don't want to be photographed at an
> event which of its very nature  is much photographed, just need to be aware
> of that and stay out of range of the viewfinder. That is not a Herculean
> task.
>

I agree with this.  Then there is this interpretation (which is new to me)
that individuals who expressly consent to be photographed in groups at
Wikimedia events can also expect their photos *not* be published online on
either Commons or social media (without explaining their position to
photographers).  I don't think this ever used to be the case.  Wikimania,
by its very nature, is a social event and there was always a presumption of
consent in the absence of express prohibition.

I do think now that there is a need for FSP to explicate norms for
photography and publishing.
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Ranjith S]

+1
Regards,

*Ranjith Siji*
Smashing Web
www.smashingweb.info 

Chat Google Talk: ranjith.sajeev Skype: ranjith.sajeev


On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:04 PM CS  wrote:

> I concede your points, but people who don't want to be photographed at an
> event which of its very nature  is much photographed, just need to be aware
> of that and stay out of range of the viewfinder. That is not a Herculean
> task.
>
> Kudpung
>
> On 6 Aug 2018, at 13:45, Kevin Payravi  wrote:
>
> Indeed. Participants don't get the "no photo" lanyards because they are
> embarrassed to be part of the movement. There are real and important
> reasons participants desire not to be photographed. Some come from
> countries where their participation on the movement is cause enough for
> arrest. Others simply want to protect their identity online, whether it is
> because they are a minor (minors do attend Wikimania), have cause to be
> concerned for the privacy (prior harassment, stalking, etc.), or simply
> value their privacy (which is valid enough reason by itself).
>
> As a global and inclusive movement, we work hard to accommodate all
> participants and this is all part of meeting that goal. Naturally these
> participants should avoid getting in the view of session recordings and
> whatnot, but being concious of who is photographed isn't a Herculean task
> and is a small ask to make to ensure a more welcoming, privacy-conscious
> event.
>
> Kevin Payravi
> SuperHamster @ en.wiki
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, 1:38 AM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>> This is going wildly of topic.  But...
>> The decency?
>>
>> I don't think i would agree with your characterization that people who
>> don't like to give a carte blanche to everyone to publish (sometimes not
>> very elegant) photos of them should treat themselves as second rank
>> participants.
>>
>> Especially in the context of a discussion around a friendly space policy,
>> i am of the opinion that this would be a dangerous direction.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 23:24 cs  wrote:
>>
>>> In  which  case, those people  should have the decency  to  not  present
>>>  themselves anywhere where a photo shoot or video  recording is very likely
>>> to take place. Or  politely  take space at  the back  of the room and wear
>>> a face mask. Personally, I  don’t  see why  anyone should be embarrassed at
>>>  being  part of a benevolent movement such  as  Wikipedia - have they
>>>  something  disastrous to  hide? In  which  case, perhaps they  better not
>>>  go  to  Wikimania at  all,  and if they  are scholarship  recipients, give
>>> their place over to  someone else.
>>>
>>> Kudpung
>>>
>>> On 06, Aug2018, at 10:18, Gnangarra  wrote:
>>>
>>> I was disappointed at the last Wikimania(london 2014) I went to with the
>>> number of people wearing dont take my photo stickers taking up positions at
>>> the front of the room or near speakers that made it hard to get images of
>>> the room and record the event.
>>>
>>> On 6 August 2018 at 11:11, cs  wrote:
>>>
 I’ve been to  a great  many  international  conferences in  my  career
 -  but  not  so many  since I  retired. I  can’t  recall  people wearing
  ‘Don’t  touch me’,  ‘Don’t  photo me’, ‘Don’t  come near me’, ‘Don’t  talk
  to  me’ badges. Do  they  do  it  nowadays already?

 We’ll  porbably  never know the details of the incident  that  sparked
 all  this off but do I  think  it is getting  out  of proportion.

 Kudpung

 On 04, Aug2018, at 02:07, Pine W  wrote:

 Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between
 friendly spaces situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.

 A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which
 sounded like a good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we
 currently do for "Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or
 "friendly touch not OK".

 I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies
 include discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused
 about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local
 organizers) and the level of transparency regarding reports and
 investigations.

 Thanks for your attention to these issues.

 Pine
 ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

 ___
 Wikimania-l mailing list
 Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l



 ___
 Wikimania-l mailing list
 Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> GN.
>>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
>>> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>>> Photo Gallery: 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[CS]

I concede your points, but people who don't want to be photographed at an event 
which of its very nature  is much photographed, just need to be aware of that 
and stay out of range of the viewfinder. That is not a Herculean task.

Kudpung

> On 6 Aug 2018, at 13:45, Kevin Payravi  wrote:
> 
> Indeed. Participants don't get the "no photo" lanyards because they are 
> embarrassed to be part of the movement. There are real and important reasons 
> participants desire not to be photographed. Some come from countries where 
> their participation on the movement is cause enough for arrest. Others simply 
> want to protect their identity online, whether it is because they are a minor 
> (minors do attend Wikimania), have cause to be concerned for the privacy 
> (prior harassment, stalking, etc.), or simply value their privacy (which is 
> valid enough reason by itself).
> 
> As a global and inclusive movement, we work hard to accommodate all 
> participants and this is all part of meeting that goal. Naturally these 
> participants should avoid getting in the view of session recordings and 
> whatnot, but being concious of who is photographed isn't a Herculean task and 
> is a small ask to make to ensure a more welcoming, privacy-conscious event.
> 
> Kevin Payravi
> SuperHamster @ en.wiki
> 
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, 1:38 AM effe iets anders  > wrote:
> This is going wildly of topic.  But... 
> The decency? 
> 
> I don't think i would agree with your characterization that people who don't 
> like to give a carte blanche to everyone to publish (sometimes not very 
> elegant) photos of them should treat themselves as second rank participants. 
> 
> Especially in the context of a discussion around a friendly space policy, i 
> am of the opinion that this would be a dangerous direction. 
> 
> Lodewijk
> 
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 23:24 cs mailto:c...@edubkk.org>> 
> wrote:
> In  which  case, those people  should have the decency  to  not  present  
> themselves anywhere where a photo shoot or video  recording is very likely to 
> take place. Or  politely  take space at  the back  of the room and wear a 
> face mask. Personally, I  don’t  see why  anyone should be embarrassed at  
> being  part of a benevolent movement such  as  Wikipedia - have they  
> something  disastrous to  hide? In  which  case, perhaps they  better not  go 
>  to  Wikimania at  all,  and if they  are scholarship  recipients, give their 
> place over to  someone else.
> 
> Kudpung
> 
>> On 06, Aug2018, at 10:18, Gnangarra > > wrote:
>> 
>> I was disappointed at the last Wikimania(london 2014) I went to with the 
>> number of people wearing dont take my photo stickers taking up positions at 
>> the front of the room or near speakers that made it hard to get images of 
>> the room and record the event.
>> 
>> On 6 August 2018 at 11:11, cs mailto:c...@edubkk.org>> 
>> wrote:
>> I’ve been to  a great  many  international  conferences in  my  career -  
>> but  not  so many  since I  retired. I  can’t  recall  people wearing  
>> ‘Don’t  touch me’,  ‘Don’t  photo me’, ‘Don’t  come near me’, ‘Don’t  talk  
>> to  me’ badges. Do  they  do  it  nowadays already?
>> 
>> We’ll  porbably  never know the details of the incident  that  sparked all  
>> this off but do I  think  it is getting  out  of proportion.
>> 
>> Kudpung
>> 
>>> On 04, Aug2018, at 02:07, Pine W >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between friendly 
>>> spaces situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.
>>> 
>>> A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which sounded 
>>> like a good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we currently 
>>> do for "Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or "friendly 
>>> touch not OK".
>>> 
>>> I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies 
>>> include discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused 
>>> about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local 
>>> organizers) and the level of transparency regarding reports and 
>>> investigations.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your attention to these issues.
>>> 
>>> Pine
>>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine 
>>>  )
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> GN.
>> Noongarpedia: 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[CS]

Lodeweik, 

I never mentioned nor hinted at second rank participants. If you think some 
are, that's your problem but don't misquote me. Thank you.

Kudpung

> On 6 Aug 2018, at 14:17, Gnangarra  wrote:
> 
> The policy can not be expected to wholly and solely ensure the safety of 
> attendees, likewise stickers arent going to be readily identifiable in all 
> circumstances.  Then ask yourself the question what if someone who wears a 
> dont photograph me lanyard is walking around photographing other people. 
> There are more solutions to ensure a person isn't in a shot than preventing 
> someone from taking the photograph. 
> 
> Placing yourself in a position to prevent others participating is an issue, I 
> can understand and respect that not everyone comes from a society where they 
> have a benevolent government who encourages the dissemination of free 
> knowledge.   A safe space policy has to include practical considerations as 
> part of that and we as end users need to also take a level of personal 
> responsibility to ensure that everyone can be part of any event, which is why 
> I raised the example. 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 6 August 2018 at 14:37, effe iets anders  > wrote:
> This is going wildly of topic.  But... 
> The decency? 
> 
> I don't think i would agree with your characterization that people who don't 
> like to give a carte blanche to everyone to publish (sometimes not very 
> elegant) photos of them should treat themselves as second rank participants. 
> 
> Especially in the context of a discussion around a friendly space policy, i 
> am of the opinion that this would be a dangerous direction. 
> 
> Lodewijk
> 
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 23:24 cs mailto:c...@edubkk.org>> 
> wrote:
> In  which  case, those people  should have the decency  to  not  present  
> themselves anywhere where a photo shoot or video  recording is very likely to 
> take place. Or  politely  take space at  the back  of the room and wear a 
> face mask. Personally, I  don’t  see why  anyone should be embarrassed at  
> being  part of a benevolent movement such  as  Wikipedia - have they  
> something  disastrous to  hide? In  which  case, perhaps they  better not  go 
>  to  Wikimania at  all,  and if they  are scholarship  recipients, give their 
> place over to  someone else.
> 
> Kudpung
> 
>> On 06, Aug2018, at 10:18, Gnangarra > > wrote:
>> 
>> I was disappointed at the last Wikimania(london 2014) I went to with the 
>> number of people wearing dont take my photo stickers taking up positions at 
>> the front of the room or near speakers that made it hard to get images of 
>> the room and record the event.
>> 
>> On 6 August 2018 at 11:11, cs mailto:c...@edubkk.org>> 
>> wrote:
>> I’ve been to  a great  many  international  conferences in  my  career -  
>> but  not  so many  since I  retired. I  can’t  recall  people wearing  
>> ‘Don’t  touch me’,  ‘Don’t  photo me’, ‘Don’t  come near me’, ‘Don’t  talk  
>> to  me’ badges. Do  they  do  it  nowadays already?
>> 
>> We’ll  porbably  never know the details of the incident  that  sparked all  
>> this off but do I  think  it is getting  out  of proportion.
>> 
>> Kudpung
>> 
>>> On 04, Aug2018, at 02:07, Pine W >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between friendly 
>>> spaces situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.
>>> 
>>> A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which sounded 
>>> like a good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we currently 
>>> do for "Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or "friendly 
>>> touch not OK".
>>> 
>>> I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies 
>>> include discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused 
>>> about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local 
>>> organizers) and the level of transparency regarding reports and 
>>> investigations.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your attention to these issues.
>>> 
>>> Pine
>>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine 
>>>  )
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> GN.
>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page 
>> 
>> WMAU: 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Gnangarra]

The policy can not be expected to wholly and solely ensure the safety of
attendees, likewise stickers arent going to be readily identifiable in all
circumstances.  Then ask yourself the question what if someone who wears a
dont photograph me lanyard is walking around photographing other people.
There are more solutions to ensure a person isn't in a shot than preventing
someone from taking the photograph.

Placing yourself in a position to prevent others participating is an issue,
I can understand and respect that not everyone comes from a society where
they have a benevolent government who encourages the dissemination of free
knowledge.   A safe space policy has to include practical considerations as
part of that and we as end users need to also take a level of personal
responsibility to ensure that everyone can be part of any event, which is
why I raised the example.





On 6 August 2018 at 14:37, effe iets anders 
wrote:

> This is going wildly of topic.  But...
> The decency?
>
> I don't think i would agree with your characterization that people who
> don't like to give a carte blanche to everyone to publish (sometimes not
> very elegant) photos of them should treat themselves as second rank
> participants.
>
> Especially in the context of a discussion around a friendly space policy,
> i am of the opinion that this would be a dangerous direction.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 23:24 cs  wrote:
>
>> In  which  case, those people  should have the decency  to  not  present
>>  themselves anywhere where a photo shoot or video  recording is very likely
>> to take place. Or  politely  take space at  the back  of the room and wear
>> a face mask. Personally, I  don’t  see why  anyone should be embarrassed at
>>  being  part of a benevolent movement such  as  Wikipedia - have they
>>  something  disastrous to  hide? In  which  case, perhaps they  better not
>>  go  to  Wikimania at  all,  and if they  are scholarship  recipients, give
>> their place over to  someone else.
>>
>> Kudpung
>>
>> On 06, Aug2018, at 10:18, Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>> I was disappointed at the last Wikimania(london 2014) I went to with the
>> number of people wearing dont take my photo stickers taking up positions at
>> the front of the room or near speakers that made it hard to get images of
>> the room and record the event.
>>
>> On 6 August 2018 at 11:11, cs  wrote:
>>
>>> I’ve been to  a great  many  international  conferences in  my  career -
>>>  but  not  so many  since I  retired. I  can’t  recall  people wearing
>>>  ‘Don’t  touch me’,  ‘Don’t  photo me’, ‘Don’t  come near me’, ‘Don’t  talk
>>>  to  me’ badges. Do  they  do  it  nowadays already?
>>>
>>> We’ll  porbably  never know the details of the incident  that  sparked
>>> all  this off but do I  think  it is getting  out  of proportion.
>>>
>>> Kudpung
>>>
>>> On 04, Aug2018, at 02:07, Pine W  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between friendly
>>> spaces situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.
>>>
>>> A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which sounded
>>> like a good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we currently
>>> do for "Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or "friendly
>>> touch not OK".
>>>
>>> I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies
>>> include discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused
>>> about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local
>>> organizers) and the level of transparency regarding reports and
>>> investigations.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your attention to these issues.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> GN.
>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
>> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
>> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
>> here
>> 
>> .
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>
> ___
> 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Kevin Payravi]

Indeed. Participants don't get the "no photo" lanyards because they are
embarrassed to be part of the movement. There are real and important
reasons participants desire not to be photographed. Some come from
countries where their participation on the movement is cause enough for
arrest. Others simply want to protect their identity online, whether it is
because they are a minor (minors do attend Wikimania), have cause to be
concerned for the privacy (prior harassment, stalking, etc.), or simply
value their privacy (which is valid enough reason by itself).

As a global and inclusive movement, we work hard to accommodate all
participants and this is all part of meeting that goal. Naturally these
participants should avoid getting in the view of session recordings and
whatnot, but being concious of who is photographed isn't a Herculean task
and is a small ask to make to ensure a more welcoming, privacy-conscious
event.

Kevin Payravi
SuperHamster @ en.wiki

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, 1:38 AM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> This is going wildly of topic.  But...
> The decency?
>
> I don't think i would agree with your characterization that people who
> don't like to give a carte blanche to everyone to publish (sometimes not
> very elegant) photos of them should treat themselves as second rank
> participants.
>
> Especially in the context of a discussion around a friendly space policy,
> i am of the opinion that this would be a dangerous direction.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 23:24 cs  wrote:
>
>> In  which  case, those people  should have the decency  to  not  present
>>  themselves anywhere where a photo shoot or video  recording is very likely
>> to take place. Or  politely  take space at  the back  of the room and wear
>> a face mask. Personally, I  don’t  see why  anyone should be embarrassed at
>>  being  part of a benevolent movement such  as  Wikipedia - have they
>>  something  disastrous to  hide? In  which  case, perhaps they  better not
>>  go  to  Wikimania at  all,  and if they  are scholarship  recipients, give
>> their place over to  someone else.
>>
>> Kudpung
>>
>> On 06, Aug2018, at 10:18, Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>> I was disappointed at the last Wikimania(london 2014) I went to with the
>> number of people wearing dont take my photo stickers taking up positions at
>> the front of the room or near speakers that made it hard to get images of
>> the room and record the event.
>>
>> On 6 August 2018 at 11:11, cs  wrote:
>>
>>> I’ve been to  a great  many  international  conferences in  my  career -
>>>  but  not  so many  since I  retired. I  can’t  recall  people wearing
>>>  ‘Don’t  touch me’,  ‘Don’t  photo me’, ‘Don’t  come near me’, ‘Don’t  talk
>>>  to  me’ badges. Do  they  do  it  nowadays already?
>>>
>>> We’ll  porbably  never know the details of the incident  that  sparked
>>> all  this off but do I  think  it is getting  out  of proportion.
>>>
>>> Kudpung
>>>
>>> On 04, Aug2018, at 02:07, Pine W  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between friendly
>>> spaces situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.
>>>
>>> A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which sounded
>>> like a good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we currently
>>> do for "Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or "friendly
>>> touch not OK".
>>>
>>> I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies
>>> include discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused
>>> about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local
>>> organizers) and the level of transparency regarding reports and
>>> investigations.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your attention to these issues.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> GN.
>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
>> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
>> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
>> here
>> 
>> .
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[effe iets anders]

This is going wildly of topic.  But...
The decency?

I don't think i would agree with your characterization that people who
don't like to give a carte blanche to everyone to publish (sometimes not
very elegant) photos of them should treat themselves as second rank
participants.

Especially in the context of a discussion around a friendly space policy, i
am of the opinion that this would be a dangerous direction.

Lodewijk

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 23:24 cs  wrote:

> In  which  case, those people  should have the decency  to  not  present
>  themselves anywhere where a photo shoot or video  recording is very likely
> to take place. Or  politely  take space at  the back  of the room and wear
> a face mask. Personally, I  don’t  see why  anyone should be embarrassed at
>  being  part of a benevolent movement such  as  Wikipedia - have they
>  something  disastrous to  hide? In  which  case, perhaps they  better not
>  go  to  Wikimania at  all,  and if they  are scholarship  recipients, give
> their place over to  someone else.
>
> Kudpung
>
> On 06, Aug2018, at 10:18, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> I was disappointed at the last Wikimania(london 2014) I went to with the
> number of people wearing dont take my photo stickers taking up positions at
> the front of the room or near speakers that made it hard to get images of
> the room and record the event.
>
> On 6 August 2018 at 11:11, cs  wrote:
>
>> I’ve been to  a great  many  international  conferences in  my  career -
>>  but  not  so many  since I  retired. I  can’t  recall  people wearing
>>  ‘Don’t  touch me’,  ‘Don’t  photo me’, ‘Don’t  come near me’, ‘Don’t  talk
>>  to  me’ badges. Do  they  do  it  nowadays already?
>>
>> We’ll  porbably  never know the details of the incident  that  sparked
>> all  this off but do I  think  it is getting  out  of proportion.
>>
>> Kudpung
>>
>> On 04, Aug2018, at 02:07, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between friendly
>> spaces situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.
>>
>> A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which sounded
>> like a good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we currently
>> do for "Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or "friendly
>> touch not OK".
>>
>> I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies
>> include discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused
>> about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local
>> organizers) and the level of transparency regarding reports and
>> investigations.
>>
>> Thanks for your attention to these issues.
>>
>> Pine
>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
> here
> 
> .
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[cs]

In  which  case, those people  should have the decency  to  not  present  
themselves anywhere where a photo shoot or video  recording is very likely to 
take place. Or  politely  take space at  the back  of the room and wear a face 
mask. Personally, I  don’t  see why  anyone should be embarrassed at  being  
part of a benevolent movement such  as  Wikipedia - have they  something  
disastrous to  hide? In  which  case, perhaps they  better not  go  to  
Wikimania at  all,  and if they  are scholarship  recipients, give their place 
over to  someone else.

Kudpung

> On 06, Aug2018, at 10:18, Gnangarra  wrote:
> 
> I was disappointed at the last Wikimania(london 2014) I went to with the 
> number of people wearing dont take my photo stickers taking up positions at 
> the front of the room or near speakers that made it hard to get images of the 
> room and record the event.
> 
> On 6 August 2018 at 11:11, cs mailto:c...@edubkk.org>> 
> wrote:
> I’ve been to  a great  many  international  conferences in  my  career -  but 
>  not  so many  since I  retired. I  can’t  recall  people wearing  ‘Don’t  
> touch me’,  ‘Don’t  photo me’, ‘Don’t  come near me’, ‘Don’t  talk  to  me’ 
> badges. Do  they  do  it  nowadays already?
> 
> We’ll  porbably  never know the details of the incident  that  sparked all  
> this off but do I  think  it is getting  out  of proportion.
> 
> Kudpung
> 
>> On 04, Aug2018, at 02:07, Pine W > > wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between friendly 
>> spaces situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.
>> 
>> A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which sounded 
>> like a good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we currently 
>> do for "Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or "friendly 
>> touch not OK".
>> 
>> I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies 
>> include discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused 
>> about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local 
>> organizers) and the level of transparency regarding reports and 
>> investigations.
>> 
>> Thanks for your attention to these issues.
>> 
>> Pine
>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine 
>>  )
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l 
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> GN.
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page 
> 
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra 
> 
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com 
> 
> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), Never Again: Reflections 
> on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8, UWAP, 2017.  Order here 
> .
> 
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Gnangarra]

I was disappointed at the last Wikimania(london 2014) I went to with the
number of people wearing dont take my photo stickers taking up positions at
the front of the room or near speakers that made it hard to get images of
the room and record the event.

On 6 August 2018 at 11:11, cs  wrote:

> I’ve been to  a great  many  international  conferences in  my  career -
>  but  not  so many  since I  retired. I  can’t  recall  people wearing
>  ‘Don’t  touch me’,  ‘Don’t  photo me’, ‘Don’t  come near me’, ‘Don’t  talk
>  to  me’ badges. Do  they  do  it  nowadays already?
>
> We’ll  porbably  never know the details of the incident  that  sparked all
>  this off but do I  think  it is getting  out  of proportion.
>
> Kudpung
>
> On 04, Aug2018, at 02:07, Pine W  wrote:
>
> Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between friendly
> spaces situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.
>
> A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which sounded
> like a good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we currently
> do for "Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or "friendly
> touch not OK".
>
> I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies
> include discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused
> about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local
> organizers) and the level of transparency regarding reports and
> investigations.
>
> Thanks for your attention to these issues.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>


-- 
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here

.
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[cs]

I’ve been to  a great  many  international  conferences in  my  career -  but  
not  so many  since I  retired. I  can’t  recall  people wearing  ‘Don’t  touch 
me’,  ‘Don’t  photo me’, ‘Don’t  come near me’, ‘Don’t  talk  to  me’ badges. 
Do  they  do  it  nowadays already?

We’ll  porbably  never know the details of the incident  that  sparked all  
this off but do I  think  it is getting  out  of proportion.

Kudpung

> On 04, Aug2018, at 02:07, Pine W  wrote:
> 
> Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between friendly 
> spaces situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.
> 
> A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which sounded like 
> a good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we currently do for 
> "Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or "friendly touch 
> not OK".
> 
> I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies include 
> discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused about why WMF 
> is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local organizers) and 
> the level of transparency regarding reports and investigations.
> 
> Thanks for your attention to these issues.
> 
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine 
>  )
> 
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Peter Southwood]

This is reasonable, and could save lots of dramah.  I am going to assume that 
the default position is “not offended by friendly contact”, but whichever is 
the most common position should be default in both cases, and suggest that the 
indicator should be visible all round. 

Cheers, 

Peter

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:wikimania-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Pine W
Sent: 03 August 2018 21:08
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

 

Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between friendly spaces 
situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.

 

A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which sounded like a 
good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we currently do for 
"Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or "friendly touch not 
OK".

 

I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies include 
discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused about why WMF 
is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local organizers) and the 
level of transparency regarding reports and investigations.

 

Thanks for your attention to these issues.




Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

 

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
 Image removed by sender.

Virus-free.  
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
 www.avg.com 

 

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Pine W]

I agree on the tracking issue. A few years ago I heard about a situation in
which a law enforcement agency was tracking complaints about its officers
and learned through that system that one of its officers had a pattern of
receiving "courtesy complaints", not bad enough to indicate that the
officer should be fired, but problematic enough in a pattern to suggest
that intervention from a supervisor was appropriate. The intervention that
was attempted was to pair that officer with a more experienced officer to
teach the younger officer about how to do his/her job with less friction.
After that intervention, the pattern of complaints stopped.


Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Kevin Payravi 
wrote:

> > I'm confused about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events
> instead of the local organizers
>
> I'm not sure if saying that the Foundation is in charge of safe space at
> local events is accurate; I see it as a shared responsibility between the
> Foundation and local organizers, and participants as well.
>
> As an organizer of several events in the US space, having the Foundation's
> involvement is valuable. As is clear from this thread, managing the safety
> of an event isn't an easy task, and so many different situations can arise.
> Organizers might not always fully have the needed experience and capacity
> to deal with these issues, and even if they do, it can be helpful to have
> the Foundation's personnel and prior experience.
>
> There is also the importance of tracking incidents across spaces i.e. if
> an incident occurs at one event, being able to ensure the incident does not
> continue (or similar incidents do not occur) at future events is important
> - and the Foundation is in a good position to be able to facilitate that.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin Payravi
> SuperHamster
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018, 2:08 PM Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between friendly
>> spaces situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.
>>
>> A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which sounded
>> like a good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we currently
>> do for "Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or "friendly
>> touch not OK".
>>
>> I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies
>> include discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused
>> about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local
>> organizers) and the level of transparency regarding reports and
>> investigations.
>>
>> Thanks for your attention to these issues.
>>
>> Pine
>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
> --
>
> Kevin Payravi
> W: http://www.kevinpayravi.com
> P: (330) 554 - 3397
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Kevin Payravi]

> I'm confused about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events instead
of the local organizers

I'm not sure if saying that the Foundation is in charge of safe space at
local events is accurate; I see it as a shared responsibility between the
Foundation and local organizers, and participants as well.

As an organizer of several events in the US space, having the Foundation's
involvement is valuable. As is clear from this thread, managing the safety
of an event isn't an easy task, and so many different situations can arise.
Organizers might not always fully have the needed experience and capacity
to deal with these issues, and even if they do, it can be helpful to have
the Foundation's personnel and prior experience.

There is also the importance of tracking incidents across spaces i.e. if an
incident occurs at one event, being able to ensure the incident does not
continue (or similar incidents do not occur) at future events is important
- and the Foundation is in a good position to be able to facilitate that.

Thanks,
Kevin Payravi
SuperHamster

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018, 2:08 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between friendly
> spaces situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.
>
> A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which sounded
> like a good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we currently
> do for "Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or "friendly
> touch not OK".
>
> I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies
> include discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused
> about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local
> organizers) and the level of transparency regarding reports and
> investigations.
>
> Thanks for your attention to these issues.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
-- 

Kevin Payravi
W: http://www.kevinpayravi.com
P: (330) 554 - 3397
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Pine W]

Thanks, James. I think that "clarifying the distinction between friendly
spaces situations and Trust & Safety issues" is a good idea.

A specific suggestion that was made earlier in this thread which sounded
like a good idea to me was to have an indicator, somewhat like we currently
do for "Photos OK" or "Photos not OK", for "friendly touch OK" or "friendly
touch not OK".

I would also like to see the upcoming review of the relevant policies
include discussions of who should be responsible for them (I'm confused
about why WMF is in charge of these issues at events instead of the local
organizers) and the level of transparency regarding reports and
investigations.

Thanks for your attention to these issues.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[James Alexander]

Hey all,

The Trust & Safety team appreciates and has carefully reviewed the input
provided here, in person during the event, and off-list. As the wider
Wikimedia movement and offline Wikimedia events grow and mature, so must
support for those events. That support takes many forms, but includes
friendly/safe space policies (FSP).

This is not a need surfaced by the Foundation or by any specific group, but
a request raised by countless event attendees and organizers. Attendees,
regardless of culture and background, want to be sure that there is some
baseline standard of behavior they can expect and that they are empowered
to set their own boundaries within reason - and that those will be
respected. Event organizers want help to set up a process like this and to
ensure that it is appropriately communicated and enforced.

This type of support is ongoing from both multiple Foundation departments
and many affiliates. Trust & Safety has, for example, been working on a
collection of trainings and visual materials for event organizers which
were recently published on Meta-Wiki[1] and used at Wikimania. The feedback
so far from event organizers and attendees has been good (and we welcome
more feedback on Meta!), but it is very clear that there is more that can
and should be done from all directions.

The event has surfaced a number of issues relating to event safety,
including how best to handle incidents when they are discussed publicly,
and clarifying the distinction between friendly spaces situations and Trust
& Safety issues (which may touch on FSP needs but are generally longer term
situations) which are often being dealt with simultaneously. The support
role we take on at large events such as Wikimania, which are attended by
hundreds of people and run by relatively small organizing teams, can blur
this line.

These and other items raised strike us as opportunities for a more
structured discussion of how to improve the existing policy and the
implementation expectations it sets.

Therefore, we will be facilitating a public review of our friendly space
policies early in Q3 (January-March 2019). The facilitated process will aim
to have a reviewed version of the FSP ready for final conversations and
refinements around the time of the Wikimedia Conference 2019 in March.

In addition, the Board asked the Community Engagement department in April
to produce a  report on FSP violations reported to us, which will happen
twice-yearly. The first of these is due December 21 for violations during
the first half of our fiscal year, and so that will also will be available
for the consultation period and cover incidents tracked since July 1st in
appropriate form.

Again, we recognize that this is a important topic to get right, and we
hope that these steps will help to improve these processes within the
Wikimedia movement going forward.

James

1, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Keeping_events_safe

*James Alexander*
Manager, Trust & Safety (Operations)
Wikimedia Foundation


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:46 PM Béria Lima  wrote:

> Since I didn't went to wikimania and other people were already making the
> points I wanted to make I tried to stay out of the conversation, but now I
> need to answer something.
>
> ***Men (add well-educated, straight, able-bodied, wealthy if you wish)
> from whatever ethnic group is most prominent in the country they live in
> have a different experience of life to everyone else.
>
> Harassment, bullying and various other forms of discrimination are much
> more frequent , even normal, for women, people from ethnic minorities, LGBT
> people, and others who don't match that description.***
>
> First of all, let's not forget that the incident that started all of this
> happened to a white straight man from Europe, and so far the only people
> who were "disqualified" from the conversation for their identity (and trus
> suffered harassment for something they CAN'T Change) were white males. So
> if we are going to town identity politics into this, I would say with the
> basis of this conversation that they are MORE likely to suffer
> discrimination not less.
>
> Second, no. Every man (or woman) is an island. Each experience is
> different. Telling someone that all white people thinks the same is like
> saying  (I can give exemples but if I do
> this thread will devolve into a discussion of the stereotype and we done
> want that).
>
> The best thing that come up of the suffragete and civil rights movements
> are that we should listen to the ideas not the person who has them, and we
> should uphold to that if equality is what we want.
>
> PS. : Because I know people will say stuff about if, let's preempt all of
> it: for those who don't know, I'm Latina and a woman, but that SHOULDN'T be
> the reason why you listen to me.
>
> On Jul 30, 2018 3:13 PM, "Chris Keating" 
> wrote:
>
> Probably the best thing that can happen to this thread now is that it
> dies off, but I did just want to respond to this point 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Béria Lima]

Since I didn't went to wikimania and other people were already making the
points I wanted to make I tried to stay out of the conversation, but now I
need to answer something.

***Men (add well-educated, straight, able-bodied, wealthy if you wish) from
whatever ethnic group is most prominent in the country they live in have a
different experience of life to everyone else.

Harassment, bullying and various other forms of discrimination are much
more frequent , even normal, for women, people from ethnic minorities, LGBT
people, and others who don't match that description.***

First of all, let's not forget that the incident that started all of this
happened to a white straight man from Europe, and so far the only people
who were "disqualified" from the conversation for their identity (and trus
suffered harassment for something they CAN'T Change) were white males. So
if we are going to town identity politics into this, I would say with the
basis of this conversation that they are MORE likely to suffer
discrimination not less.

Second, no. Every man (or woman) is an island. Each experience is
different. Telling someone that all white people thinks the same is like
saying  (I can give exemples but if I do
this thread will devolve into a discussion of the stereotype and we done
want that).

The best thing that come up of the suffragete and civil rights movements
are that we should listen to the ideas not the person who has them, and we
should uphold to that if equality is what we want.

PS. : Because I know people will say stuff about if, let's preempt all of
it: for those who don't know, I'm Latina and a woman, but that SHOULDN'T be
the reason why you listen to me.

On Jul 30, 2018 3:13 PM, "Chris Keating"  wrote:

Probably the best thing that can happen to this thread now is that it
dies off, but I did just want to respond to this point by Pine,
because it's really important:

> 1. How, exactly, are white males unqualified to discuss the Friendly
Space Policy because of their/our identity as white males?

Men (add well-educated, straight, able-bodied, wealthy if you wish)
from whatever ethnic group is most prominent in the country they live
in have a  different experience of life to everyone else.

Harassment, bullying and various other forms of discrimination are
much more frequent , even normal, for women, people from ethnic
minorities, LGBT people, and others who don't match that description.

So a conversation mainly conducted by white men about something like a
Friendly Space Policy is mainly being conducted by people who do not
experience the issue that the Friendly Space Policy is designed to
address. Or if they do experience it, it's an unusual thing that's
easy to laugh off.

Therefore this kind of conversation is much more likely to conclude
that there isn't a real problem, or the policy isn't working, or other
things are more important (e.g. being REALLY TRANSPARENT ABOUT
EVERYTHING), or whatever has happened in a particular case isn't an
issue. Which, predictably enough, is *exactly* what has happened in
this conversation.

Regards,

Chris

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Chris Keating]

Probably the best thing that can happen to this thread now is that it
dies off, but I did just want to respond to this point by Pine,
because it's really important:

> 1. How, exactly, are white males unqualified to discuss the Friendly Space 
> Policy because of their/our identity as white males?

Men (add well-educated, straight, able-bodied, wealthy if you wish)
from whatever ethnic group is most prominent in the country they live
in have a  different experience of life to everyone else.

Harassment, bullying and various other forms of discrimination are
much more frequent , even normal, for women, people from ethnic
minorities, LGBT people, and others who don't match that description.

So a conversation mainly conducted by white men about something like a
Friendly Space Policy is mainly being conducted by people who do not
experience the issue that the Friendly Space Policy is designed to
address. Or if they do experience it, it's an unusual thing that's
easy to laugh off.

Therefore this kind of conversation is much more likely to conclude
that there isn't a real problem, or the policy isn't working, or other
things are more important (e.g. being REALLY TRANSPARENT ABOUT
EVERYTHING), or whatever has happened in a particular case isn't an
issue. Which, predictably enough, is *exactly* what has happened in
this conversation.

Regards,

Chris

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Luca Martinelli]

Il giorno lun 30 lug 2018 alle ore 12:57 Deryck Chan
 ha scritto:
> The problem here is that if WMF or the organisers of an event needs to 
> enforce FSP and keeps secret about the entire incident, speculation and 
> one-sided perspectives can run amok in the community debate that ensues.
>
> Lilli and Asaf have a good point: the specifics about a case of FSP 
> enforcement ought not to be the subject of public debate because that creates 
> additional stress on the participants. But for the enforcers to keep utter 
> silence has served the opposite purpose: the lack of an official statement of 
> enforcement has caused speculation to run wild.
>
> It would be in the interest of both transparency and justice that the T or 
> the organisers make a short announcement whenever FSP is invoked. It could be 
> as anonymous as "We have had an incident where an attendee felt uncomfortable 
> in a discussion. Attendees are reminded to... [insert appropriate behaviour]"
>
> What is missing from the FSP process is this pre-emptive, limited release of 
> information from an act of enforcement. It can come with a reminder that 
> further discussion of the incident is discouraged to protect the privacy of 
> those involved.

+2. Just to let you know, Wikimedia Italia has recently approved a
Code of Conduct,[1] roughly based on WMF's Friendly Space Policy, with
the difference that we explicitly stated that the person that gets
sanctioned in light of the Code of Conduct has the right to know why
the sanction has been taken.

I think *this* would be the one and only amendment that we should do
to the FSP. It doesn't have to be publicly announced by Katherine or
Jimbo to the whole assembly, but at least it'd be nice for the person
affected to know.

There's also another thing we should do, but this cannot be an
amendment to the FSP. I quote directly DaB. on this:

Il giorno lun 30 lug 2018 alle ore 02:24 DaB.  ha scritto:
> I will respect the other people around me, I will try to
> not make them uncomfortable, and if there is a problem (for example:
> being too loud) I expect that somebody will talk to me, and I’m sure
> that there will be a solution.

I know that somebody would feel... weird in asking certain things, or
to respect certain things. I know what it's like, because I live in
constant fear of "doing the wrong thing", since I too have some minor
problems in approaching new people, and sometimes overthink too much
the weight of my words or actions.

Asking politely not to do certain things to me is perfect, but in a
way we should remember Wikimania or any other wiki event is NOT an
hostile environment - quite the opposite. In my experience, I found
wiki events the perfect environment to step up a bit my "social
skills", because I know this is *my* people I'm addressing, let's not
forget that.

L.

[1] https://wiki.wikimedia.it/wiki/Codice_di_condotta (Italian only)

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Luca Martinelli]

Il giorno lun 30 lug 2018 alle ore 09:00 Philip Kopetzky
 ha scritto:
> Guys, can you please take any discussion among you white males to Wikimedia-l 
> if you still feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You can't force a 
> public debate, especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already stated the obvious.

Plonk.

-- 
Luca "Sannita" Martinelli
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Anirudh S. Bhati]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:56 PM Mina Theofilatou 
wrote:

> White female speaking: this is an important discussion for EVERYONE. I
> will refrain from replying often as I was upset by the incident in CT, and
> I have personal experience of an incident at Wikimania 2016, and thus I
> find it hard to not get carried away. So I will reiterate that TRANSPARENCY
> is what we need.
>
> (And in reply to WMF input to this thread: just because the Trust & Safety
> team bears the name does not mean that they unconditionally deserve our
> trust, nor that our safety is safeguarded. Names and titles abound in
> society. If content adhered to name there would be no need for dispute and
> conflict)
>

I wholeheartedly agree with you - transparency is needed to ensure
accountability. One's title does not automatically bestow legitimacy to
your actions and decisions specially when they affect the lives and
reputations of others.

Also, one's racial or sexual identity should not be used to discount their
opinions. That's not the Wikimedia way.
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Deryck Chan]

Let's move beyond who is and isn't qualified to comment on the policy. The
spirit of the Friendly Space Policy is that it should create a friendly
space for every participant, regardless of background.

Participants of this thread generally agree on what it means to feel safe.
There is relatively little debate about the expectations as written down in
the Friendly Space Policy.

What needs fixing is the consequences of violating the policy. The current
version of the policy (which has remained virtually unchanged since 2012)
has essentially one sentence:

> If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the conference organizers
> may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender
> or expulsion from the conference.
>
( https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy )

The problem here is that if WMF or the organisers of an event needs to
enforce FSP and keeps secret about the entire incident, speculation and
one-sided perspectives can run amok in the community debate that ensues.

Lilli and Asaf have a good point: the specifics about a case of FSP
enforcement ought not to be the subject of public debate because that
creates additional stress on the participants. But for the enforcers to
keep utter silence has served the opposite purpose: the lack of an official
statement of enforcement has caused speculation to run wild.

It would be in the interest of both transparency and justice that the T
or the organisers make a short announcement whenever FSP is invoked. It
could be as anonymous as "We have had an incident where an attendee felt
uncomfortable in a discussion. Attendees are reminded to... [insert
appropriate behaviour]"

What is missing from the FSP process is this pre-emptive, limited release
of information from an act of enforcement. It can come with a reminder that
further discussion of the incident is discouraged to protect the privacy of
those involved.

Deryck

On 30 July 2018 at 09:56, Mina Theofilatou  wrote:

> White female speaking: this is an important discussion for EVERYONE. I
> will refrain from replying often as I was upset by the incident in CT, and
> I have personal experience of an incident at Wikimania 2016, and thus I
> find it hard to not get carried away. So I will reiterate that TRANSPARENCY
> is what we need.
>
> (And in reply to WMF input to this thread: just because the Trust & Safety
> team bears the name does not mean that they unconditionally deserve our
> trust, nor that our safety is safeguarded. Names and titles abound in
> society. If content adhered to name there would be no need for dispute and
> conflict)
>
>
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Mina Theofilatou]

White female speaking: this is an important discussion for EVERYONE. I will
refrain from replying often as I was upset by the incident in CT, and I
have personal experience of an incident at Wikimania 2016, and thus I find
it hard to not get carried away. So I will reiterate that TRANSPARENCY is
what we need.

(And in reply to WMF input to this thread: just because the Trust & Safety
team bears the name does not mean that they unconditionally deserve our
trust, nor that our safety is safeguarded. Names and titles abound in
society. If content adhered to name there would be no need for dispute and
conflict)

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, 10:53 Pine W,  wrote:

> Philip,
>
> I am going to try to say this politely.
>
> 1. How, exactly, are white males unqualified to discuss the Friendly Space
> Policy because of their/our identity as white males? And are you certain
> that everyone who has so far participated in this discussion is a white
> male?
>
> 2. A public discussion is already happening. Whether the discussion should
> happen in a different venue is certainly OK to ask, but I see no reason to
> attrempt to silence the discussion so long as it generally remains on a
> topic of public importance.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Philip Kopetzky 
> *Sent: *30 July 2018 09:01
> *To: *Wikimania general list (open subscription)
> 
> *Subject: *Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)
>
>
>
> Guys, can you please take any discussion among you white males to
> Wikimedia-l if you still feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You
> can't force a public debate, especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already
> stated the obvious.
>
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Pine W]

Philip,
I am going to try to say this politely.
1. How, exactly, are white males unqualified to discuss the Friendly Space 
Policy because of their/our identity as white males? And are you certain that 
everyone who has so far participated in this discussion is a white male?
2. A public discussion is already happening. Whether the discussion should 
happen in a different venue is certainly OK to ask, but I see no reason to 
attrempt to silence the discussion so long as it generally remains on a topic 
of public importance.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) 




 From: Philip Kopetzky
Sent: 30 July 2018 09:01
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news) Guys, can you 
please take any discussion among you white males to Wikimedia-l if you still 
feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You can't force a public debate, 
especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already stated the obvious. 
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Ilario Valdelli]

Probably I am saying the same and this means to don’t use categories in this 
discussion.

Is not it clear?

Kind regards

--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch

From: Philip Kopetzky
Sent: 30 July 2018 09:01
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

Guys, can you please take any discussion among you white males to Wikimedia-l 
if you still feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You can't force a 
public debate, especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already stated the obvious. 

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, 08:39 Ilario Valdelli,  
wrote:
Hi all,
I comment here because this reply is important and I agree with it but I would 
also stress that 75% of the women being harassed probably are in position where 
someone takes an advantage of his position to create around these women a 
forced silence and the possibility of blackmail. But it’s not the case that 
started this thread.
 
To use correctly the statistics, the numbers must be understood correctly 
because the Fundamental Rights Agency is reporting about “women in qualified 
professions or top management” and it means in an uncomfortable position.
 
In all this discussion what strikes me is the exaggerated reaction of both 
parties.
 
The use of the safe space policy is good and is welcome but this policy has a 
value where it’s applied in a correct way and there is not an exaggerated use.
 
And yes, “exaggeration” is what I would stress now in the wikiverse.
 
I already said that probably it would have been sufficient to ask “kindly” to 
don’t be touched and to use an escalation or to use the safe space policy when 
this behavior would have been recurrent and constant after this first warning.
 
I suggest to don’t exaggerate because if we would solve a discrimination 
introducing discrimination, or we would look at this case as an example of 
inappropriate behavior on women probably we have to look to the history of the 
wolf and the lamb of Esopo.
 
The principle of the safe space policy is good and it has been created mainly 
to protect the freedom of opinion, but I suggest to take care to don’t 
introduce the difference of gender or of race or of religion etc. Because every 
time we gives an advantage or a disadvantage to someone using these categories, 
there is always a part which is discriminated.
 
Kind regards
 
--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
 
From: Lilli Iliev
Sent: 29 July 2018 19:05
To: wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)
 
Hi all,
 
I decided to contribute to this thread, however not in order to elaborate on my 
personal opinion on this specific case. This would be inappropriate, as we do 
not have sufficient information about it and also out of respect for the people 
involved.
 
Instead, I want to comment, because I feel strongly about the consequences this 
discussion may have - not only on the perception of the friendly space policy 
and its effectiveness, but also on people who may need to refer to the policy 
in the future.
 
This past Wikimania was very much about the importance of representing all 
people in our movement and about finding ways for them to have a voice, to be 
heard – and to feel safe to contribute and participate.
 
One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well as 
keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other, 
non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and 
judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here. It is 
furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal irritation 
about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of this topic, 
against a context in which harassment and violence is not the exception, but 
everyday reality.
 
Policies and measures like codes of conduct etc. exist for a reason. Invisible 
to many, harassment does happen, it happens a lot, it happens also amongst 
communities with great, humanitarian goals. In the world most of us live in, 
offensive or invasive behavior has no tangible consequences for those who 
commit it, but severe effects on those who experience it. According to the 
Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified professions or top 
management jobs have been sexually harassed[1]. UN Women has confirmed that 
there is a big problem with underreporting when it comes to these cases.
Efforts like the friendly space policies aim to contribute

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Philip Kopetzky]

Guys, can you please take any discussion among you white males to
Wikimedia-l if you still feel the need to discuss this amongst you? You
can't force a public debate, especially wheb Asaf and Lilli have already
stated the obvious.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, 08:39 Ilario Valdelli, 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I comment here because this reply is important and I agree with it but I
> would also stress that 75% of the women being harassed probably are in
> position where someone takes an advantage of his position to create around
> these women a forced silence and the possibility of blackmail. But it’s not
> the case that started this thread.
>
>
>
> To use correctly the statistics, the numbers must be understood correctly
> because the Fundamental Rights Agency is reporting about “women in
> qualified professions or top management” and it means in an uncomfortable
> position.
>
>
>
> In all this discussion what strikes me is the exaggerated reaction of both
> parties.
>
>
>
> The use of the safe space policy is good and is welcome but this policy
> has a value where it’s applied in a correct way and there is not an
> exaggerated use.
>
>
>
> And yes, “exaggeration” is what I would stress now in the wikiverse.
>
>
>
> I already said that probably it would have been sufficient to ask “kindly”
> to don’t be touched and to use an escalation or to use the safe space
> policy when this behavior would have been recurrent and constant after this
> first warning.
>
>
>
> I suggest to don’t exaggerate because if we would solve a discrimination
> introducing discrimination, or we would look at this case as an example of
> inappropriate behavior on women probably we have to look to the history of
> the wolf and the lamb of Esopo.
>
>
>
> The principle of the safe space policy is good and it has been created
> mainly to protect the freedom of opinion, but I suggest to take care to
> don’t introduce the difference of gender or of race or of religion etc.
> Because every time we gives an advantage or a disadvantage to someone using
> these categories, there is always a part which is discriminated.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Wikipedia: Ilario
> Skype: valdelli
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
>
>
> *From: *Lilli Iliev 
> *Sent: *29 July 2018 19:05
> *To: *wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> *Subject: *[Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I decided to contribute to this thread, however not in order to elaborate
> on my personal opinion on this specific case. This would be inappropriate,
> as we do not have sufficient information about it and also out of respect
> for the people involved.
>
>
>
> Instead, I want to comment, because I feel strongly about the consequences
> this discussion may have - not only on the perception of the friendly space
> policy and its effectiveness, but also on people who may need to refer to
> the policy in the future.
>
>
>
> This past Wikimania was very much about the importance of representing all
> people in our movement and about finding ways for them to have a voice, to
> be heard – and to feel safe to contribute and participate.
>
>
>
> One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well
> as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other,
> non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and
> judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here.
> It is furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal
> irritation about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of
> this topic, against a context in which harassment and violence is not the
> exception, but everyday reality.
>
>
>
> Policies and measures like codes of conduct etc. exist for a reason.
> Invisible to many, harassment does happen, it happens a lot, it happens
> also amongst communities with great, humanitarian goals. In the world most
> of us live in, offensive or invasive behavior has no tangible consequences
> for those who commit it, but severe effects on those who experience it.
> According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified
> professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1]. UN Women
> has confirmed that there is a big problem with underreporting when it comes
> to these cases.
>
> Efforts like the friendly space policies aim to contribute to establish a
> societal climate where people feel safe and that makes all people aware,
> that inappropriate behavior has consequences.
>
>
>
> Publicly judging and ridiculing efforts to find a process, suitable to
> make all people feel safe, heard, and, if necessary, taken seriously at
> events, can set back efforts of creating such a process. Measures like
> friendly 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Ilario Valdelli]

Hi all,
I comment here because this reply is important and I agree with it but I would 
also stress that 75% of the women being harassed probably are in position where 
someone takes an advantage of his position to create around these women a 
forced silence and the possibility of blackmail. But it’s not the case that 
started this thread.

To use correctly the statistics, the numbers must be understood correctly 
because the Fundamental Rights Agency is reporting about “women in qualified 
professions or top management” and it means in an uncomfortable position.

In all this discussion what strikes me is the exaggerated reaction of both 
parties.

The use of the safe space policy is good and is welcome but this policy has a 
value where it’s applied in a correct way and there is not an exaggerated use.

And yes, “exaggeration” is what I would stress now in the wikiverse.

I already said that probably it would have been sufficient to ask “kindly” to 
don’t be touched and to use an escalation or to use the safe space policy when 
this behavior would have been recurrent and constant after this first warning.

I suggest to don’t exaggerate because if we would solve a discrimination 
introducing discrimination, or we would look at this case as an example of 
inappropriate behavior on women probably we have to look to the history of the 
wolf and the lamb of Esopo.

The principle of the safe space policy is good and it has been created mainly 
to protect the freedom of opinion, but I suggest to take care to don’t 
introduce the difference of gender or of race or of religion etc. Because every 
time we gives an advantage or a disadvantage to someone using these categories, 
there is always a part which is discriminated.

Kind regards

--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch

From: Lilli Iliev
Sent: 29 July 2018 19:05
To: wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

Hi all,
 
I decided to contribute to this thread, however not in order to elaborate on my 
personal opinion on this specific case. This would be inappropriate, as we do 
not have sufficient information about it and also out of respect for the people 
involved.
 
Instead, I want to comment, because I feel strongly about the consequences this 
discussion may have - not only on the perception of the friendly space policy 
and its effectiveness, but also on people who may need to refer to the policy 
in the future.
 
This past Wikimania was very much about the importance of representing all 
people in our movement and about finding ways for them to have a voice, to be 
heard – and to feel safe to contribute and participate.
 
One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well as 
keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other, 
non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and 
judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here. It is 
furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal irritation 
about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of this topic, 
against a context in which harassment and violence is not the exception, but 
everyday reality.
 
Policies and measures like codes of conduct etc. exist for a reason. Invisible 
to many, harassment does happen, it happens a lot, it happens also amongst 
communities with great, humanitarian goals. In the world most of us live in, 
offensive or invasive behavior has no tangible consequences for those who 
commit it, but severe effects on those who experience it. According to the 
Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified professions or top 
management jobs have been sexually harassed[1]. UN Women has confirmed that 
there is a big problem with underreporting when it comes to these cases.
Efforts like the friendly space policies aim to contribute to establish a 
societal climate where people feel safe and that makes all people aware, that 
inappropriate behavior has consequences.
 
Publicly judging and ridiculing efforts to find a process, suitable to make all 
people feel safe, heard, and, if necessary, taken seriously at events, can set 
back efforts of creating such a process. Measures like friendly space policies 
are not self-evident, they are an hard fought for achievement. Seeing, how fast 
those efforts are being called into question, is quite disheartening and 
worries me a lot.
 
I am very grateful to work for and with a movement that has agreed on trying to 
make all people feel welcome and respected. I hope that we will keep fostering 
this together.

best
Lilli


[1] http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/fra_9dec2014.pdf


--
Lilli Iliev

Projektmanagerin Politik
project 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[effe iets anders]

Hi dab,
I'm glad you didn't experience any problems.
May i ask how you conclude that we "survived"? What does it mean? No
incidents? No murders? No near-incidents? I'm just trying to understand how
you evaluate the success of a (no)  policy.
Lodewijk


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 02:24 DaB.  wrote:

> Hello John.
> Am 29.07.2018 um 23:40 schrieb John Hendrik Weitzmann:
> > Nobody here seems to doubt that we need norms, especially at and around
> > events.
>
> I was at 2 Wikimanias, 5 WikiCons, several workshops and meetings, and
> nearly 2 dozen of WMDE-chapter-meeting – and only the very least of them
> had a written down policy: And we managed to survive too. Even better,
> because we had no unneeded arguments about a policy.
>
> When I go to a meeting of Wikipedians I want to talk with people. I
> don’t want to worry about if my current behavior is in line with the
> current policy. I will respect the other people around me, I will try to
> not make them uncomfortable, and if there is a problem (for example:
> being too loud) I expect that somebody will talk to me, and I’m sure
> that there will be a solution.
> I don’t need a list of norms that somebody defined who may had a
> different cultural background – or even worse: the intersecting set of
> what is ok in all cultures (that may/will be the empty set).
>
>
> Good night.
> DaB.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]]
> PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[DaB.]

Hello John.
Am 29.07.2018 um 23:40 schrieb John Hendrik Weitzmann:
> Nobody here seems to doubt that we need norms, especially at and around
> events.

I was at 2 Wikimanias, 5 WikiCons, several workshops and meetings, and
nearly 2 dozen of WMDE-chapter-meeting – and only the very least of them
had a written down policy: And we managed to survive too. Even better,
because we had no unneeded arguments about a policy.

When I go to a meeting of Wikipedians I want to talk with people. I
don’t want to worry about if my current behavior is in line with the
current policy. I will respect the other people around me, I will try to
not make them uncomfortable, and if there is a problem (for example:
being too loud) I expect that somebody will talk to me, and I’m sure
that there will be a solution.
I don’t need a list of norms that somebody defined who may had a
different cultural background – or even worse: the intersecting set of
what is ok in all cultures (that may/will be the empty set).


Good night.
DaB.




-- 
Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]]
PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Gnangarra]

One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well
> as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other,
> non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and
> judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here.
> It is furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal
> irritation about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of
> this topic, against a context in which harassment and violence is not the
> exception, but everyday reality.
>
>
>>
>>
Transparency is the only way forward, a process where a known, trusted, and
respected community member is sanction behind closed doors by a group of
faceless, nameless individuals is never going to produce a trusted
outcome.One immediate re action would be to publish for every event, a
list of the people who are responsible for the decisions.   When they make
a decision they must be able to immediately defend that decision and the
actions taken, all parties must be clear on the reasons otherwise we do end
with what took place. Its this lack of transparency, understanding, and
silence that has brought us to this point.


  In the world most of us live in, offensive or invasive behavior has no
> tangible consequences for those who commit it, but severe effects on those
> who experience it


Even in this community  it takes place,  its seams to me we spend a lot of
time learning but very little time understanding because we keep finding
transparency is a common issue when things go astray.


On 30 July 2018 at 06:15, Pine W  wrote:

>
> I have no personal knowledge of the recent events at Wikimania, and I will
> speak about only the general principles involved.
>
>
>> True.  But for privacy and other reasons, it is impractical to make
>> friendly-space violations a matter of public debate,
>>
>
> Please provide evidence that backs up that point. I have repeatedly seen
> similar assertions made by WMF staff with no data or analysis to support it.
>
>
>> so we cannot resolve this the wiki way.  Instead, we *have* to trust the
>> people entrusted with enforcing the policy that they are careful, sensible,
>> and competent.
>>
>
> I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't trust judges to put people in jail
> simply because they happen to be judges. I trust judges to put people in
> jail after the publication of convincing evidence and reasoning to support
> their intended course of action.
>
> The standard of evidence required to remove someone from office, or remove
> them from an event, can be lower than the standard required to put someone
> in jail, but I still want mostly transparent due process to happen so that:
>
> 1. people who allege that misconduct has taken place have significant
> visibility into how their complaints are handled and thus, hopefully, can
> have confidence that the accusations are investigated in a responsible
> manner instead of being carelessly dismissed, and
> 2. people are not victimized with clearly false or poorly supported
> accusations that the authorities recklessly use as a basis for issuing
> sanctions instead of conducting a responsible investigation.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>


-- 
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here

.
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Pine W]

I have no personal knowledge of the recent events at Wikimania, and I will
speak about only the general principles involved.


> True.  But for privacy and other reasons, it is impractical to make
> friendly-space violations a matter of public debate,
>

Please provide evidence that backs up that point. I have repeatedly seen
similar assertions made by WMF staff with no data or analysis to support it.


> so we cannot resolve this the wiki way.  Instead, we *have* to trust the
> people entrusted with enforcing the policy that they are careful, sensible,
> and competent.
>

I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't trust judges to put people in jail
simply because they happen to be judges. I trust judges to put people in
jail after the publication of convincing evidence and reasoning to support
their intended course of action.

The standard of evidence required to remove someone from office, or remove
them from an event, can be lower than the standard required to put someone
in jail, but I still want mostly transparent due process to happen so that:

1. people who allege that misconduct has taken place have significant
visibility into how their complaints are handled and thus, hopefully, can
have confidence that the accusations are investigated in a responsible
manner instead of being carelessly dismissed, and
2. people are not victimized with clearly false or poorly supported
accusations that the authorities recklessly use as a basis for issuing
sanctions instead of conducting a responsible investigation.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[John Hendrik Weitzmann]

Hi all,

someone asked me not to comment on this issue anymore, but as I think/hope
that we are now on the meta level, let me remind everyone that a policy is
just a particular aggregate state of norms. Nobody here seems to doubt that
we need norms, especially at and around events. And norms often require
active application. So somebody should take the leadership task of taking
this debate further, but not without disecting it into the three things it
is about:

a) pros and cons of having norms congealed in the form of a policy
b) the ways of application / enforcement of those norms
c) how to maintain consensus on the standards for infringement

While the last of those three parts might seem to be the most difficult, I
suspect that b) is actually the most complex one to solve.

Best
John

Am So., 29. Juli 2018 um 23:14 Uhr schrieb Lodewijk <
lodew...@effeietsanders.org>:

> I disagree that there is no use for a policy at all. Sure, there are laws,
> but I would prefer not to have to use them - that we can avoid misbehavior
> in the first place. Having a good and consistent policy helps Wikipedians
> navigate. Don't (just) define what is forbidden, but (also) define what is
> 'good behavior'. For some people this is obvious, but there are also
> community members that find comfort in knowing what is a safe guideline to
> follow. There are also community members that will find comfort in knowing
> that they can expect certain behavior from their colleagues, no matter the
> country the event happens to be organized in.
>
> I do agree however, that arbitrariness is not a good outcome. If there is
> even the impression that there is arbitrariness, the value of the policy is
> tainted. This is why I'm asking to review the policy - not because I
> disagree with the core principles, but because I don't like how it plays
> out - at the very least in the perception. But in this, I'm starting to
> repeat myself.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:03 PM DaB.  wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>> Am 29.07.2018 um 19:27 schrieb Chris Keating:
>> > to make sure everyone is welcome
>>
>> You mean everyone that is not a little deaf, speaks not a little too
>> loud and does not dare to deliver stuff to other sessions?
>>
>>
>> The hole case is a primary example why such things as a
>> friendly-space-policy are complete bullshit. It is nearly never used
>> with good intensions, it is nearly never used against people who really
>> are misbehaving, but against normal people.
>>
>> If there is really a problem, most countries have laws for/against it.
>> That’s enough. If there is no law against a problem, there is no real
>> problem. There is no law against too-loud-speaking because it is not
>> needed; if somebody speaks too loud, you can just tell him/her. There
>> are laws against unwelcome sexual contacts because they are a problem;
>> use the laws if needed – no policy is needed here.
>>
>> The reason why some people prefer policies is the matter of believing.
>> If I say “XYZ touched me!” with a policy all I need is that somebody
>> important believes me. With a law I need proofs. With a policy there is
>> no need for proofs, there is no in dubio pro reo – there is just the
>> question whom the important persons believes more. In German that is
>> called Willkür (≈arbitrariness/capriciousness/despotism) and for good
>> reasons we got rid of it.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> DaB.
>>
>> P.S: And before somebody assumes: I was never the victim of a
>> friendly-space-policy.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]]
>> PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Lodewijk]

I disagree that there is no use for a policy at all. Sure, there are laws,
but I would prefer not to have to use them - that we can avoid misbehavior
in the first place. Having a good and consistent policy helps Wikipedians
navigate. Don't (just) define what is forbidden, but (also) define what is
'good behavior'. For some people this is obvious, but there are also
community members that find comfort in knowing what is a safe guideline to
follow. There are also community members that will find comfort in knowing
that they can expect certain behavior from their colleagues, no matter the
country the event happens to be organized in.

I do agree however, that arbitrariness is not a good outcome. If there is
even the impression that there is arbitrariness, the value of the policy is
tainted. This is why I'm asking to review the policy - not because I
disagree with the core principles, but because I don't like how it plays
out - at the very least in the perception. But in this, I'm starting to
repeat myself.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:03 PM DaB.  wrote:

> Hello.
> Am 29.07.2018 um 19:27 schrieb Chris Keating:
> > to make sure everyone is welcome
>
> You mean everyone that is not a little deaf, speaks not a little too
> loud and does not dare to deliver stuff to other sessions?
>
>
> The hole case is a primary example why such things as a
> friendly-space-policy are complete bullshit. It is nearly never used
> with good intensions, it is nearly never used against people who really
> are misbehaving, but against normal people.
>
> If there is really a problem, most countries have laws for/against it.
> That’s enough. If there is no law against a problem, there is no real
> problem. There is no law against too-loud-speaking because it is not
> needed; if somebody speaks too loud, you can just tell him/her. There
> are laws against unwelcome sexual contacts because they are a problem;
> use the laws if needed – no policy is needed here.
>
> The reason why some people prefer policies is the matter of believing.
> If I say “XYZ touched me!” with a policy all I need is that somebody
> important believes me. With a law I need proofs. With a policy there is
> no need for proofs, there is no in dubio pro reo – there is just the
> question whom the important persons believes more. In German that is
> called Willkür (≈arbitrariness/capriciousness/despotism) and for good
> reasons we got rid of it.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> DaB.
>
> P.S: And before somebody assumes: I was never the victim of a
> friendly-space-policy.
>
>
> --
> Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]]
> PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[DaB.]

Hello.
Am 29.07.2018 um 19:27 schrieb Chris Keating:
> to make sure everyone is welcome 

You mean everyone that is not a little deaf, speaks not a little too
loud and does not dare to deliver stuff to other sessions?


The hole case is a primary example why such things as a
friendly-space-policy are complete bullshit. It is nearly never used
with good intensions, it is nearly never used against people who really
are misbehaving, but against normal people.

If there is really a problem, most countries have laws for/against it.
That’s enough. If there is no law against a problem, there is no real
problem. There is no law against too-loud-speaking because it is not
needed; if somebody speaks too loud, you can just tell him/her. There
are laws against unwelcome sexual contacts because they are a problem;
use the laws if needed – no policy is needed here.

The reason why some people prefer policies is the matter of believing.
If I say “XYZ touched me!” with a policy all I need is that somebody
important believes me. With a law I need proofs. With a policy there is
no need for proofs, there is no in dubio pro reo – there is just the
question whom the important persons believes more. In German that is
called Willkür (≈arbitrariness/capriciousness/despotism) and for good
reasons we got rid of it.


Sincerely,
DaB.

P.S: And before somebody assumes: I was never the victim of a
friendly-space-policy.


-- 
Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]]
PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 29 July 2018 at 18:27, Chris Keating  wrote:

> Lots of opinions from people going "well this person didn't harass
> me" or "I don't know the specifics but maybe it's just cultural
> differences"

I'm one of the people who commented, early on, on that original
thread; and I don't believe that describes my post.

I did note that there was prima face evidence that a community member
who had a disability (my word for it; not theirs) appeared to have
been discriminated against, at least in part, due to the effects of
that disability. I would expect or "safe space" policy to ensure that
this did not happen.

I have not seen a single response, to date, that has addressed this
point; either specifically or in general.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Nathan]

There is a gulf between behavior that might make someone uncomfortable,
which may be the result of cultural differences, and harassment or
violence. We should take care to ensure people who need some education on
the former don't feel like they have been found guilty of the latter.

And such policies and programs have to be open to review and criticism.
Being necessary and hardwon does not make them infallible and must not
insulate them from any scrutiny.

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 1:04 PM Lilli Iliev  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I decided to contribute to this thread, however not in order to elaborate
> on my personal opinion on this specific case. This would be inappropriate,
> as we do not have sufficient information about it and also out of respect
> for the people involved.
>
>
>
> Instead, I want to comment, because I feel strongly about the consequences
> this discussion may have - not only on the perception of the friendly space
> policy and its effectiveness, but also on people who may need to refer to
> the policy in the future.
>
>
>
> This past Wikimania was very much about the importance of representing all
> people in our movement and about finding ways for them to have a voice, to
> be heard – and to feel safe to contribute and participate.
>
>
>
> One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well
> as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other,
> non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and
> judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here.
> It is furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal
> irritation about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of
> this topic, against a context in which harassment and violence is not the
> exception, but everyday reality.
>
>
>
> Policies and measures like codes of conduct etc. exist for a reason.
> Invisible to many, harassment does happen, it happens a lot, it happens
> also amongst communities with great, humanitarian goals. In the world most
> of us live in, offensive or invasive behavior has no tangible consequences
> for those who commit it, but severe effects on those who experience it.
> According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified
> professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1]. UN
> Women has confirmed that there is a big problem with underreporting when it
> comes to these cases.
>
> Efforts like the friendly space policies aim to contribute to establish a
> societal climate where people feel safe and that makes all people aware,
> that inappropriate behavior has consequences.
>
>
>
> Publicly judging and ridiculing efforts to find a process, suitable to
> make all people feel safe, heard, and, if necessary, taken seriously at
> events, can set back efforts of creating such a process. Measures like
> friendly space policies are not self-evident, they are an hard fought for
> achievement. Seeing, how fast those efforts are being called into question,
> is quite disheartening and worries me a lot.
>
>
>
> I am very grateful to work for and with a movement that has agreed on
> trying to make all people feel welcome and respected. I hope that we will
> keep fostering this together.
>
>
> best
>
> Lilli
>
>
> --
>
> <#m_2997935674535597173__ftnref1>[1]
> http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/fra_9dec2014.pdf
>
>
> --
> Lilli Iliev
>
> Projektmanagerin Politik
> project manager public policy
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 7:04 PM Lilli Iliev 
wrote:

> According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, 75% of women in qualified
> professions or top management jobs have been sexually harassed[1].
>

Where did you get that figure from? When I Control+F the number "75"
nowhere in that document you linked appears that number, and there is no
mention to "qualified professions or top management jobs" either.

It is also worth noting that their definition of harassment (page 11)
includes "unwelcome touching" (I suppose touching a shoulder would qualify
as harassment under this definition).

Regards,
Micru
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Asaf Bartov]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Lilli Iliev, 29/07/2018 20:04:
> > One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as
> > well as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how
> > other, non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what
> > happened and judge the case or the person in question.
>
> I'll note that this is valid both ways. So, to be consistent, you
> shouldn't jump at the conclusion that the outcome of the case was
> correct, just as you are asking not to jump to the conclusion it was wrong.
>

True.  But for privacy and other reasons, it is impractical to make
friendly-space violations a matter of public debate, so we cannot resolve
this the wiki way.  Instead, we *have* to trust the people entrusted with
enforcing the policy that they are careful, sensible, and competent.

It is still possible, of course, that they would make an occasional
mistake.  But we *still* can't turn a given action (or inaction) into a
matter of public debate.  We still have to trust the team.

What we can do as a community is debate *principles*, i.e. the policy
itself.  If a significant opinion forms in favor of adding, changing, or
removing some elements from the policy, that could be input for the team(s)
enforcing the policy.

A.
___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Lilli Iliev, 29/07/2018 20:04:
One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as 
well as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how 
other, non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what 
happened and judge the case or the person in question.


I'll note that this is valid both ways. So, to be consistent, you 
shouldn't jump at the conclusion that the outcome of the case was 
correct, just as you are asking not to jump to the conclusion it was wrong.


Federico

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Chris Keating]

Thanks for writing this Lilli - I completely agree. Lots of opinions
from people going "well this person didn't harass me" or "I don't know
the specifics but maybe it's just cultural differences" or "omg the
WMF has done something outrageous again" do not really help this kind
of situation.

If our objective is to make sure everyone is welcome in the Wikimedia
movement it's vital that something like the Friendly Space policy
exists and is enforced.

Chris

>
> One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as well as 
> keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how other, 
> non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what happened and 
> judge the case or the person in question. This is what has happened here. It 
> is furthermore, absolutely out of proportion to weigh ones personal 
> irritation about some members being potentially more aware and sensitive of 
> this topic, against a context in which harassment and violence is not the 
> exception, but everyday reality.
>

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Mina Theofilatou]

Sorry about that Lodewijk, I thought the change of title was plainly to
make the title more relevant to the discussion.

For all it's worth, my contribution to this discussion in the general
policy sense can be summarised in the capitalised word of my previous
reply's first sentence: TRANSPARENCY. What's private should remain private
(the case is often such when safety is at stake), and what's public should
remain public.

Apologies again, have a good afternoon

Mina

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Hi Mina,
>
> I intentionally started a new thread to be able to have a more abstract
> discussion about the general policy. I would highly appreciate it if you
> won't bring it back to the single case.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:48 AM Mina Theofilatou 
> wrote:
>
>> People: our movement is founded on TRANSPARENCY. Which is - sadly -
>> totally lacking in the Support and Safety Department.
>>
>> The Friendly Spaces policy supposedly protects Wikimedians against
>> threat: examples of such have been provided. Romaine's behaviour quite
>> simply does not fall under the "threat" category.
>>
>> I specifically requested in the previous thread that SuSa at least
>> explained to us what the "threat" was. Numerous Wikimedians from all over
>> the world who gathered in Cape Town expressed our support both online and
>> in person to a respected Wikimedian who is dedicated to the movement and
>> has offered so tremendously to Wikimania (the three I have attended, and
>> can thus refer to. From my point of view, Romaine is the ONLY volunteer I
>> can remember running around to make sure everything is running smoothly
>> since my first day in Mexico City).
>>
>>  I am repeating my plea here: what is it that roughly 90% of the
>> participants - from the responses I have read and the support I witnessed
>> in person - that we don't get
>>
>> That said, I have personal experience of the shortcomings in the SuSa
>> dept. No need to go into details here.
>>
>> In closing, let me just say that I have connected the dots and I have a
>> pretty good idea of who complained and why this is being kept secret.
>> Elusive as this last statement may seem, it is no more elusive than James's
>> initial account of his decision on how to handle the incident (so please
>> James don't accuse me of speculating: you're the one who's leading me in
>> that direction. I am overwhelmed by your injustice against Romaine and if
>> you really are interested in resolving this issue and the bewilderment of
>> the community once and for all, it's quite easy: just be open about what
>> really happened)
>>
>> Romaine you have my unwavering support, regardless of the last word to
>> this incident. We need nice, warm, fun, hard-working and enthusiastic
>> people like you in the movement :)
>>
>> Best,
>> Mina
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, 21:52 Lodewijk,  wrote:
>>
>>> I hope that the WMF Trust & Safety dept will soon some with a roadmap
>>> how to effectively evaluate this process with examples we can actually
>>> discuss without violating privacy. (I made some suggestions in person, but
>>> will leave it in their capable hands to take a long overdue leadership role
>>> in this conversation).
>>>
>>> My main concern is that I heard too many people ridiculing the friendly
>>> space policy in the past week - mostly people who would likely never
>>> violate it, but seemingly no longer feel empowered by it, feel no longer
>>> that it represents a best practice they should hold people to. Maybe the
>>> phrasing was never to the standards that they held, maybe it is a recent
>>> development. But it's high time to review things together with the wider
>>> community. If a policy like this is not supported broadly, I doubt it will
>>> ever be a success.
>>>
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Deryck Chan 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I look forward to "hug me" / "don't touch me" stickers being issued
 next year Q(^_^Q)

 Indeed we do "don't photograph me" stickers already so "personal space
 needed" stickers sound like a natural extension.

 Deryck
 (multicultural / "hug me")

 On 27 July 2018 at 15:31, Sam Oyeyele  wrote:

> I believe the best way to avoid this kind of situation in the future,
> is to have tags specifically to indicate a need for personal space or
> something.
>
> From what I have read so far, Romaine has done nothing "out of the
> ordinary" (based on my cultural perspective); and he doesn't deserve this
> kind of treatment/sanction/punishment/etc.
>
> I should also state that I have met Romaine a couple of times, and he
> is indeed a very nice man, who always means the best.
>
> Sam.
>
> On 25 Jul 2018 16:41, Deryck Chan  wrote:
>
> This is the second time I remember that the Friendly Space Policy was
> invoked to remove a Wikimania attendee from a situation, presumably 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Lodewijk]

Hi Mina,

I intentionally started a new thread to be able to have a more abstract
discussion about the general policy. I would highly appreciate it if you
won't bring it back to the single case.

Thank you.

Lodewijk

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:48 AM Mina Theofilatou 
wrote:

> People: our movement is founded on TRANSPARENCY. Which is - sadly -
> totally lacking in the Support and Safety Department.
>
> The Friendly Spaces policy supposedly protects Wikimedians against threat:
> examples of such have been provided. Romaine's behaviour quite simply does
> not fall under the "threat" category.
>
> I specifically requested in the previous thread that SuSa at least
> explained to us what the "threat" was. Numerous Wikimedians from all over
> the world who gathered in Cape Town expressed our support both online and
> in person to a respected Wikimedian who is dedicated to the movement and
> has offered so tremendously to Wikimania (the three I have attended, and
> can thus refer to. From my point of view, Romaine is the ONLY volunteer I
> can remember running around to make sure everything is running smoothly
> since my first day in Mexico City).
>
>  I am repeating my plea here: what is it that roughly 90% of the
> participants - from the responses I have read and the support I witnessed
> in person - that we don't get
>
> That said, I have personal experience of the shortcomings in the SuSa
> dept. No need to go into details here.
>
> In closing, let me just say that I have connected the dots and I have a
> pretty good idea of who complained and why this is being kept secret.
> Elusive as this last statement may seem, it is no more elusive than James's
> initial account of his decision on how to handle the incident (so please
> James don't accuse me of speculating: you're the one who's leading me in
> that direction. I am overwhelmed by your injustice against Romaine and if
> you really are interested in resolving this issue and the bewilderment of
> the community once and for all, it's quite easy: just be open about what
> really happened)
>
> Romaine you have my unwavering support, regardless of the last word to
> this incident. We need nice, warm, fun, hard-working and enthusiastic
> people like you in the movement :)
>
> Best,
> Mina
>
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, 21:52 Lodewijk,  wrote:
>
>> I hope that the WMF Trust & Safety dept will soon some with a roadmap how
>> to effectively evaluate this process with examples we can actually discuss
>> without violating privacy. (I made some suggestions in person, but will
>> leave it in their capable hands to take a long overdue leadership role in
>> this conversation).
>>
>> My main concern is that I heard too many people ridiculing the friendly
>> space policy in the past week - mostly people who would likely never
>> violate it, but seemingly no longer feel empowered by it, feel no longer
>> that it represents a best practice they should hold people to. Maybe the
>> phrasing was never to the standards that they held, maybe it is a recent
>> development. But it's high time to review things together with the wider
>> community. If a policy like this is not supported broadly, I doubt it will
>> ever be a success.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Deryck Chan  wrote:
>>
>>> I look forward to "hug me" / "don't touch me" stickers being issued next
>>> year Q(^_^Q)
>>>
>>> Indeed we do "don't photograph me" stickers already so "personal space
>>> needed" stickers sound like a natural extension.
>>>
>>> Deryck
>>> (multicultural / "hug me")
>>>
>>> On 27 July 2018 at 15:31, Sam Oyeyele  wrote:
>>>
 I believe the best way to avoid this kind of situation in the future,
 is to have tags specifically to indicate a need for personal space or
 something.

 From what I have read so far, Romaine has done nothing "out of the
 ordinary" (based on my cultural perspective); and he doesn't deserve this
 kind of treatment/sanction/punishment/etc.

 I should also state that I have met Romaine a couple of times, and he
 is indeed a very nice man, who always means the best.

 Sam.

 On 25 Jul 2018 16:41, Deryck Chan  wrote:

 This is the second time I remember that the Friendly Space Policy was
 invoked to remove a Wikimania attendee from a situation, presumably because
 of in-person misconduct on their part, where the removal was made public
 but the reason of removal was kept secret.

 The problem with such secretive invocations of Friendly Space is that
 it is very difficult, as Reem and others have pointed out, to not see this
 as a punishment.

 I understand that it is very difficult to balance the specific,
 personal sensitivities and cultural preferences of several hundred people
 from different cultures. But as this discussion has shown, it is
 counter-productive to use Friendly Space this way, because other
 Wikimaniacs are left worrying 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Mina Theofilatou]

People: our movement is founded on TRANSPARENCY. Which is - sadly - totally
lacking in the Support and Safety Department.

The Friendly Spaces policy supposedly protects Wikimedians against threat:
examples of such have been provided. Romaine's behaviour quite simply does
not fall under the "threat" category.

I specifically requested in the previous thread that SuSa at least
explained to us what the "threat" was. Numerous Wikimedians from all over
the world who gathered in Cape Town expressed our support both online and
in person to a respected Wikimedian who is dedicated to the movement and
has offered so tremendously to Wikimania (the three I have attended, and
can thus refer to. From my point of view, Romaine is the ONLY volunteer I
can remember running around to make sure everything is running smoothly
since my first day in Mexico City).

 I am repeating my plea here: what is it that roughly 90% of the
participants - from the responses I have read and the support I witnessed
in person - that we don't get

That said, I have personal experience of the shortcomings in the SuSa dept.
No need to go into details here.

In closing, let me just say that I have connected the dots and I have a
pretty good idea of who complained and why this is being kept secret.
Elusive as this last statement may seem, it is no more elusive than James's
initial account of his decision on how to handle the incident (so please
James don't accuse me of speculating: you're the one who's leading me in
that direction. I am overwhelmed by your injustice against Romaine and if
you really are interested in resolving this issue and the bewilderment of
the community once and for all, it's quite easy: just be open about what
really happened)

Romaine you have my unwavering support, regardless of the last word to this
incident. We need nice, warm, fun, hard-working and enthusiastic people
like you in the movement :)

Best,
Mina

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, 21:52 Lodewijk,  wrote:

> I hope that the WMF Trust & Safety dept will soon some with a roadmap how
> to effectively evaluate this process with examples we can actually discuss
> without violating privacy. (I made some suggestions in person, but will
> leave it in their capable hands to take a long overdue leadership role in
> this conversation).
>
> My main concern is that I heard too many people ridiculing the friendly
> space policy in the past week - mostly people who would likely never
> violate it, but seemingly no longer feel empowered by it, feel no longer
> that it represents a best practice they should hold people to. Maybe the
> phrasing was never to the standards that they held, maybe it is a recent
> development. But it's high time to review things together with the wider
> community. If a policy like this is not supported broadly, I doubt it will
> ever be a success.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Deryck Chan  wrote:
>
>> I look forward to "hug me" / "don't touch me" stickers being issued next
>> year Q(^_^Q)
>>
>> Indeed we do "don't photograph me" stickers already so "personal space
>> needed" stickers sound like a natural extension.
>>
>> Deryck
>> (multicultural / "hug me")
>>
>> On 27 July 2018 at 15:31, Sam Oyeyele  wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the best way to avoid this kind of situation in the future, is
>>> to have tags specifically to indicate a need for personal space or
>>> something.
>>>
>>> From what I have read so far, Romaine has done nothing "out of the
>>> ordinary" (based on my cultural perspective); and he doesn't deserve this
>>> kind of treatment/sanction/punishment/etc.
>>>
>>> I should also state that I have met Romaine a couple of times, and he is
>>> indeed a very nice man, who always means the best.
>>>
>>> Sam.
>>>
>>> On 25 Jul 2018 16:41, Deryck Chan  wrote:
>>>
>>> This is the second time I remember that the Friendly Space Policy was
>>> invoked to remove a Wikimania attendee from a situation, presumably because
>>> of in-person misconduct on their part, where the removal was made public
>>> but the reason of removal was kept secret.
>>>
>>> The problem with such secretive invocations of Friendly Space is that it
>>> is very difficult, as Reem and others have pointed out, to not see this as
>>> a punishment.
>>>
>>> I understand that it is very difficult to balance the specific, personal
>>> sensitivities and cultural preferences of several hundred people from
>>> different cultures. But as this discussion has shown, it is
>>> counter-productive to use Friendly Space this way, because other
>>> Wikimaniacs are left worrying what the appropriate behaviour is supposed to
>>> be.
>>>
>>> I don't know the details of this incident because it wasn't public. But
>>> from what I know of Romaine from previous Wikimanias, I'm disappointed that
>>> this incident couldn't have been handled behind the scenes with T and the
>>> people involved. The fact that Romaine felt the need to go public about his
>>> removal as an organiser showed 

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Peter Southwood]

Unfortunately, almost every tool can be used as a weapon.

Cheers,

Peter

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:wikimania-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gnangarra
Sent: 29 July 2018 04:45
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

 

I think the problem is that many Wikimedians are very good at interpreting 
policies in to definite rules to suit their point of view, and we struggle to 
recognise that the spirit of a policy is more important. When that happens we 
write more complexity in to policies rather than keeping it simple and giving 
trust that we can reach reasonable outcomes.

 

Simply stated the policy is; 

 

everyone should have the ability to contribute without fear, intimidation, or 
recrimination.

 

everything that comes next become the tools for which to harness the power of 
these policies, there is never going to be a simple set of words to guide us 
because once we accept that someone has been harmed we then expect a response 
that lays blame with another who intern must be punished.   Its this flip side 
that make the policy a joke because someone now has their ability to contribute 
laced with fear(I can say anything), intimidation(I cant do that again or I'll 
be sent packing) and recrimination(I cant do what I'm here to do and I wont be 
able to attend any future events).   The safe space policy isnt meant to quell 
discussion, temper a persons enthusiasm, nor change their culture,  it there 
solely to enable everyone to safely and freely contribute. 

 

On 29 July 2018 at 02:52, Lodewijk  wrote:

I hope that the WMF Trust & Safety dept will soon some with a roadmap how to 
effectively evaluate this process with examples we can actually discuss without 
violating privacy. (I made some suggestions in person, but will leave it in 
their capable hands to take a long overdue leadership role in this 
conversation). 

 

My main concern is that I heard too many people ridiculing the friendly space 
policy in the past week - mostly people who would likely never violate it, but 
seemingly no longer feel empowered by it, feel no longer that it represents a 
best practice they should hold people to. Maybe the phrasing was never to the 
standards that they held, maybe it is a recent development. But it's high time 
to review things together with the wider community. If a policy like this is 
not supported broadly, I doubt it will ever be a success.

 

Lodewijk

 

 

 

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Deryck Chan  wrote:

I look forward to "hug me" / "don't touch me" stickers being issued next year 
Q(^_^Q) 

 

Indeed we do "don't photograph me" stickers already so "personal space needed" 
stickers sound like a natural extension.

 

Deryck

(multicultural / "hug me")

 

On 27 July 2018 at 15:31, Sam Oyeyele  wrote:

I believe the best way to avoid this kind of situation in the future, is to 
have tags specifically to indicate a need for personal space or something. 

 

>From what I have read so far, Romaine has done nothing "out of the ordinary" 
>(based on my cultural perspective); and he doesn't deserve this kind of 
>treatment/sanction/punishment/etc.

 

I should also state that I have met Romaine a couple of times, and he is indeed 
a very nice man, who always means the best.

 

Sam.

 

On 25 Jul 2018 16:41, Deryck Chan  wrote:

This is the second time I remember that the Friendly Space Policy was invoked 
to remove a Wikimania attendee from a situation, presumably because of 
in-person misconduct on their part, where the removal was made public but the 
reason of removal was kept secret.

 

The problem with such secretive invocations of Friendly Space is that it is 
very difficult, as Reem and others have pointed out, to not see this as a 
punishment.

 

I understand that it is very difficult to balance the specific, personal 
sensitivities and cultural preferences of several hundred people from different 
cultures. But as this discussion has shown, it is counter-productive to use 
Friendly Space this way, because other Wikimaniacs are left worrying what the 
appropriate behaviour is supposed to be.

 

I don't know the details of this incident because it wasn't public. But from 
what I know of Romaine from previous Wikimanias, I'm disappointed that this 
incident couldn't have been handled behind the scenes with T and the people 
involved. The fact that Romaine felt the need to go public about his removal as 
an organiser showed mis-handling of process.

 

Well, actually the previous time was 6 years ago, so maybe we're doing well. We 
did try reforming the friendly space policy around 2013-14 but couldn't agree 
on something better at the time... The doors of improvement always stay open 
for the Wikimedia movement.

 

--Deryck

 

On 20 July 2018 at 11:28, James Alexander  wrote:

Hey all, 

 

I am, as always, sor

Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news)

[Gnangarra]

I think the problem is that many Wikimedians are very good at interpreting
policies in to definite rules to suit their point of view, and we struggle
to recognise that the spirit of a policy is more important. When that
happens we write more complexity in to policies rather than keeping it
simple and giving trust that we can reach reasonable outcomes.

Simply stated the policy is;


everyone should have the ability to contribute without fear, intimidation,
or recrimination.

everything that comes next become the tools for which to harness the power
of these policies, there is never going to be a simple set of words to
guide us because once we accept that someone has been harmed we then expect
a response that lays blame with another who intern must be punished.   Its
this flip side that make the policy a joke because someone now has their
ability to contribute laced with fear(I can say anything), intimidation(I
cant do that again or I'll be sent packing) and recrimination(I cant do
what I'm here to do and I wont be able to attend any future events).   The
safe space policy isnt meant to quell discussion, temper a persons
enthusiasm, nor change their culture,  it there solely to enable everyone
to safely and freely contribute.

On 29 July 2018 at 02:52, Lodewijk  wrote:

> I hope that the WMF Trust & Safety dept will soon some with a roadmap how
> to effectively evaluate this process with examples we can actually discuss
> without violating privacy. (I made some suggestions in person, but will
> leave it in their capable hands to take a long overdue leadership role in
> this conversation).
>
> My main concern is that I heard too many people ridiculing the friendly
> space policy in the past week - mostly people who would likely never
> violate it, but seemingly no longer feel empowered by it, feel no longer
> that it represents a best practice they should hold people to. Maybe the
> phrasing was never to the standards that they held, maybe it is a recent
> development. But it's high time to review things together with the wider
> community. If a policy like this is not supported broadly, I doubt it will
> ever be a success.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Deryck Chan  wrote:
>
>> I look forward to "hug me" / "don't touch me" stickers being issued next
>> year Q(^_^Q)
>>
>> Indeed we do "don't photograph me" stickers already so "personal space
>> needed" stickers sound like a natural extension.
>>
>> Deryck
>> (multicultural / "hug me")
>>
>> On 27 July 2018 at 15:31, Sam Oyeyele  wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the best way to avoid this kind of situation in the future, is
>>> to have tags specifically to indicate a need for personal space or
>>> something.
>>>
>>> From what I have read so far, Romaine has done nothing "out of the
>>> ordinary" (based on my cultural perspective); and he doesn't deserve this
>>> kind of treatment/sanction/punishment/etc.
>>>
>>> I should also state that I have met Romaine a couple of times, and he is
>>> indeed a very nice man, who always means the best.
>>>
>>> Sam.
>>>
>>> On 25 Jul 2018 16:41, Deryck Chan  wrote:
>>>
>>> This is the second time I remember that the Friendly Space Policy was
>>> invoked to remove a Wikimania attendee from a situation, presumably because
>>> of in-person misconduct on their part, where the removal was made public
>>> but the reason of removal was kept secret.
>>>
>>> The problem with such secretive invocations of Friendly Space is that it
>>> is very difficult, as Reem and others have pointed out, to not see this as
>>> a punishment.
>>>
>>> I understand that it is very difficult to balance the specific, personal
>>> sensitivities and cultural preferences of several hundred people from
>>> different cultures. But as this discussion has shown, it is
>>> counter-productive to use Friendly Space this way, because other
>>> Wikimaniacs are left worrying what the appropriate behaviour is supposed to
>>> be.
>>>
>>> I don't know the details of this incident because it wasn't public. But
>>> from what I know of Romaine from previous Wikimanias, I'm disappointed that
>>> this incident couldn't have been handled behind the scenes with T and the
>>> people involved. The fact that Romaine felt the need to go public about his
>>> removal as an organiser showed mis-handling of process.
>>>
>>> Well, actually the previous time was 6 years ago, so maybe we're doing
>>> well. We did try reforming the friendly space policy around 2013-14 but
>>> couldn't agree on something better at the time... The doors of improvement
>>> always stay open for the Wikimedia movement.
>>>
>>> --Deryck
>>>
>>> On 20 July 2018 at 11:28, James Alexander 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I am, as always, sorry, that this has spilled out into the public sphere
>>> more I do not think that is ever a good thing as discussion of specific
>>> situations like this only serves to increase discomfort, make people feel
>>> even less safe and make victims of everyone.
>>>