Dear all,
Thanks for reading and responding to our concerns, including with
thoughtful questions and comments. We’re writing with a brief response to
the different messages, with the two key aspects that have been raised.
What we propose: In case it wasn’t already super clear, we confirm that
Race and ethnicity have already proven to be controversial in this context, and
will probably continue to be controversial, but maybe less so if appropriately
defined. Anyway, those who make the decisions carry the ethical responsibility,
even if they can avoid legal responsibility. Cheers,
The comment from WJBScribe in May 2021 that the open letter mentioned is
here: <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text#Concern_with_note_included_under_%22Insults%22>
(he also raised it earlier during the English Wikipedia consultation). Was
there a
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 1:06 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> Definitions of terminology makes sense in any document that is intended as
> an enforceable guide to behavior. Without them, whose definition applies?
> Cheers, Peter
>
No document defines all its terms.
Hello,
What does the incriminated sentence actually mean?
"The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as
meaningful distinctions among people."
Does this mean that
* the WM is against; or
* that the WM is neutral on the topic?
And, after reading the English Wikipedia
It's almost as if ratifying an incomplete document based on vague framework
and future changes is a terrible idea.
That this is coming up now is not the least bit surprising. It was brought
up, along with many things, during one of the arbitrarily endpointed
"discussion" periods that involved
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:36:12 +0100
Anasuya Sengupta wrote:
> Tl;dr Urgent need to address the note denying race and ethnicity as
> “meaningful distinctions among people” in the Universal Code of Conduct
> (UCoC). The current wording is highly problematic and can result in
> endorsing systemic and
Definitions of terminology makes sense in any document that is intended as an
enforceable guide to behavior. Without them, whose definition applies? Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Lane Chance [mailto:zinkl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2022 11:17
To: Wikimedia Mailing
Thank you Adele and Anasuya, for pointing out how problematic that sentence
is. I also find that it subverts the otherwise brilliant work of the
Harassment section, and my layperson's +1 is to remove everything between
the parentheses. The section would then read:
> [We define harassment as]
Dear Anasuya,
thank you. Even after reading your text, I still do not understand
what the meaningful difference between people (i.e., user accounts) of
different races is. Can you provide an example of how the UCoC should
take into account the race property of a person to influence a
decision?
I think that the statement of UCoC wants somehow consider that the
definition of racism and ethnicity has a different meaning in the current
time and needs to be updated because the risk is to use outdated models
that sometimes can generate more confusions than solutions.
The statement of Whose
It would make the UCoC easier to understand if there was a glossary on
the same page. A chosen definition of "race" or "ethnicity" being used
in the context of this policy document may not be the same as exists
in the reader's head, how they describe their own identity, or as
might be used on
Hi everyone,
I think there's a misinterpretation here. Saying that race and ethnicity
aren't meaningful distinctions among people doesn't mean that racism
doesn't exist. That's a lot of negatives, but the way I see it, it's just
recognizing that race is in fact a social construct, and thus
Hello, Anasuya and Whose Knowledge.
(Context for those who don’t know me: I am the Vice President of Community
Resilience & Sustainability, and among others I oversee the team
shepherding the UCoC process.)
Thank you very much for raising this issue. Foundation staff have been
discussing this as
Hello Anasuya,
Thank you for your insightful post. Just for clarification: do you
agree that insults based on "race" (social construct) should be
prohibited in general? And I mean, regardless of the "race" in
question?
And do you propose an alternative wording or do you just want to see
the
Thanks Anasuya. +1 to all of this!
For the backlog of specific change proposals like this that have been made
and not yet addressed/rebutted or implemented: how should these be sorted?
(Ditto for the possibility of implied revisions in the recent announcement)
Perhaps we could use more parallel
16 matches
Mail list logo
