If someone states that something is unclear, they very obviously intend
“unclear” to apply to their perception of it.
For example, I just used the words “very obviously.” That is my perception,
my opinion, what I gathered from the information available to me. Should I
note “it is my opinion
Hi,
This has just been published on the Mozilla community blog by Emma Irwin and I
thought it could interest some of you here.
https://blog.mozilla.org/community/2020/09/10/weaving-safety-into-the-fabric-of-open-source/
It brings insight into the experience of enforcing a code of conduct in
To expand on the last part of my previous post, one of the things that
Peter and other posters are doing that is problematic in my eyes is
phrasing their opinions as fact. It is quite clear to me why Dan was put on
moderation. So it is a false statement to say that "this is patently
unclear". I
I for one very much appreciate that the moderators put Dan on moderation. I
support sanctions for insulting and rude behavior. Peter--if you are
looking for exact, quantitative criteria, you aren't going to get it. This
is about impact of communication on the receiver, not specific words used
by
{{trigger warning : French joke included}}
Dear Pete, let me explain why this is problematic.
First I am sorry to say there is no hidden agenda or awful witchery plot to
uncover including WMF influence. I have myself severely criticised the WMF in
the course of the branding process (and was
There was no clear statement of "this is the problematic text and this is why
it is considered unacceptable", which is a thing that I consider a reasonable
expectation, as it is possible to learn from it, understand it, pass
constructive criticism or agreement, and use as it a precedent for
I would call this fair comment, and parallels can be drawn between how the UCoC
may be used and the current discussion. Without clear statement on why a
decision is made it cannot be properly understood, accepted or improved, and we
end up in the usual spiral of speculation, accusation and bad
In that case, can we please have an explanation of exactly how the relevant
text was found to be inappropriate, as this is patently unclear, and
apparently the reason for all this debate. I have my own speculation, but as
it is speculation, it would be inappropriate to publicise unless there is no
Thanks for the reply.
I took a look at it and found it terribly vague.
Depending on subjective interpretation, I can imagine it being used to justify
whatever judgement is to be made.
I am no more enlightened.
> On Sep 11, 2020, at 4:05 AM, Alphos OGame wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
Hello everyone,
What I want to read : comments on the UCoC.
What I don't want to read : a barrage of *insert adjective, whether laudative
or criticizing* reply after reply after reply after reply on the comments of
one or more of the subscribers of this list.
I understand the initial comments
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta
wrote:
>
>
> Please, enlighten me.
>
Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you
see room for improvement or disagree with anything specific in it. This is
a productive way to compare your personal understanding of
Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
expressions, and how they are determined?
There were been several explanations already. It's possible to use mild
words in a cruel way, for example a father telling their child "You've
always had beans for brains."
No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no
intention of maintaining a list.
We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include
avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's
interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the
Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
expressions, and how they are determined?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Anders Wennersten
Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33
To:
It is not yet clear that the use of the words "fart" or "flatulence" are the
actual issue. Context matters, but we do not know the full context yet, as the
reasons have not been explained, leaving us with little option but to
speculate. We are experiencing a failure of communication as much, or
There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find
that expression offensive and unacceptable.
Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures
and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a
valid judgment for all, and why do
Please, enlighten me.
On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> :
>>
>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have
>> a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
>
> Well, are you
Except, apparently, if someone says "fart". For godsakes, that's about the
mildest of language you could ask for. I could use far stronger about this
whole farce.
If the "UCoC" means that people can't say "fart" because someone might get
their feewings hurted, then I've very well been right to
Hi Natacha,
I am not opposed to UCoC but I am afraid you have unrealistic expectations.
We do have serious behavioral problems in the big communities. One of them,
for example, is that the general tone of discussions is very aggressive and
prevents some categories of users, for example, women,
Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
:
>
> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have
> a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
theoretically be the case, at least
Am I reading this correctly?
You were moderated for calling the UCoC flatulence?
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have a
deeply flawed understanding of civility?
On Sep 9, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Dan Szymborski wrote:
> That's OK. I have much bigger
Mr. Szymborski,
I understand you have very little faith in the Wikimedia Foundation, and
are upset about some past decisions and statements it has made. As I
already wrote above, you are welcome to express that criticism so long as
you manage to remain civil, which includes avoiding vulgarity.
Sure, WMF running roughshod over the community is something that doesn't
happen.
I must be imagining the events that led to the community open letter on
renaming, which featured nearly a thousand individual endorsers and 72
community affiliates.
I'm not "confused" at all. Nor do I have any willingness to be "educated"
by you. I reject your argument and I will reiterate that nothing I said
would be in violation of any UCoC in existence.
This kind of condescending talking-down-to is far more insulting than
anything I said. Perhaps you
I strongly disagree. There's no "reasonable person" standard in which
anything I said would be found offensive. I'm frequently sought out by
professors as a *mentor* for journalism students and we talk about issues
such as this. I'm no shock jock.
If anything, this spell highlights one of the
For a UVoC to be helpful, it would have to be sufficiently clear about what is
unacceptable, and why it is unacceptable, and would itself have to be
sufficiently clear and acceptable to be seen as fair by the communities who
would be bound by it. This is not easy to do, and the talk page
Anders, I think you are referring to jargon. I agree that it should be avoided
in the interests of clarity and ease of reliable translation.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Anders Wennersten
Sent: 10
I want to echo Jackies two mail
The community for svwp is not so big and complicated issues on conduct
are uncommon. But when they occur we often get caught in argument like "
you who claim to decide over svwp CoC are just a small kabal of some
10-120 admins, you are unrepresentative and the
Dan,
I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal
Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear
understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use
of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference
Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception.
Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski
wrote:
> I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> to flatulence, something we see
Are those things not already covered by the terms of use?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Amir Sarabadani
Sent: 10 September 2020 13:22
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code
I just want to say while I agree IMO there's a growing disconnect in some
parts of WMF with the communities but it's not happening here. In fact it's
also the other way around. Some people in communities and some communities
in general have been growing too disconnected from the framework they are
As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in
less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here. Your
strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly
acceptable.
As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to
I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
"collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last 18
months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
Hello,
A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write for many
years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping abusive
behaviors in our community.
On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they did not
enroll to deal with them. A
Yair
I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on the
strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person
specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some other
community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over what
topics
The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June 2019
by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the strategy
process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF
appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had
pseudo-consultations about it started
That's OK. I have much bigger platforms. My apologies for the
ultra-offensive reference to...flatulence.
Best,
Dan
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:03 PM Jackie wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of a
> Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear
Hi Dan,
I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of a
Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a
WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I can
say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It
Hoi,
I do not like the text. You first state a problem that the policy is to
address. By flipping the order it becomes instantly more positive. The
objective is to instill the notion what normal behaviour is and that sadly
we have to insist on normal behaviour.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, 7
Dear anonymus,
The problem starts when the administrators who are called to
> perform those rules are the harrashers themselves and don' t get punished.
>
A code of conduct should preempt this.
> For example [users who can] fly under the rader and be likeable.
[users who] run the annual
Some thoughts over the matter:
Wikipedia has already rules about how the users should interact and the
"penalties" that all users would endure equally if they wouldn 't apply to
them. If you are a volunteer/user the things are simple. You get blocked
and that is that. Imagine being a newbie then
There was meant to be a " " there, but my phone rudely stripped it.
If it does it again, I'll make up a rule and suspend it for a year. It's
what the WMF would want, I'm sure.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:45 PM Andy Mabbett
wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:06, Dan Szymborski wrote:
>
> > The
Thanks Patrick + all. It looks like most discussion is happening on Meta,
which seems fitting.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
>
UCoC is pointless if their systems of enforcement are themselves biased or
weighted in any way to those who are known to the community. The large
communities already have policies, the problem in those communities is the
unwillingness and inability of the process to be enforced equally on those
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:06, Dan Szymborski wrote:
> The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the community
> board elections
[...]
They're not elections; we get to vote on nominations, the board decide
whether to accept them.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
Yeah, we've seen from the branding fiasco just how much the imperial
overlords deign to respect the opinions of the peasants.
The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the community
board elections, have been scuttled for Very Convenient Reasons.
The model is terribly broken
Hello Dan,
You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better and
more useful on the Draft talk page.
That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings",
you probably expected a different model where different language
Wikip(m)edia community would be
I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or WMF
as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything that
looks like an "imposition"
The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to
As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. Doubly
so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily
denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
community seats, to
51 matches
Mail list logo
