Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advisory board

[Sam Klein]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>
>
> (It would be interesting to hear some better experiences: ways in which our
> AB has been useful over the years.)
>

+ AB members usually submits names for trustee and exec searches, when they
are aware of those searches. It was a rec from the Advisory Board that
identified Bishakha as a potential Trustee, for instance.

+ The advisors were invited to a 2-day strategy session at Wikimania Egypt,
which contributed to an early version of the WMF's strategy.  And a number
of them participated directly in the 2009 strategy process.

I hope that the advisors are engaged more for nominations for future
appointees, for connections with potential partners, and in the {coming /
perennial} strategy process; all areas where their breadth of field would
be useful.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

[Anders Wennersten]

My personal analysis comes to the conclusion that the voting 
formula/voting system needs to be redesigned before next election. The 
current one has serious flaws related to the oppose option. It is both 
open to "smart" voting (manipulation) and it also gives undue weight to 
the oppose option.


There are several ways a redesign can be done, from keeping the SNO but 
with a modified formula to changing it to one of the options Chris 
mention or others.


With the set up of a standing committee there will be ample time to work 
with this issue before next election. And I expect it will be done with 
involving the community on lists and meta


Anders

Den 2016-01-30 kl. 10:00, skrev Chris Keating:

It would be good if the voting system was built to give a clear next best
option in these circumstances.

Simple positive voting,  single transferable vote, and proportional Schulze
would all do that.

I wonder if there's any movement on the idea of a standing election
committee to consider now how the next community election will be set up?

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




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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

[Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive)]

Congratulations Maria!

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Welcome back Maria. Recent events have shed a much-needed bright light on
> the board, and it would have been good to hold a community election in that
> light. We do have a limited volunteer capacity to manage elections, though,
> and I can understand the desire not to impose too much on volunteer
> goodwill. A shame, though. We all might have learned something from the
> process.
>
> On Saturday, 30 January 2016, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > So, why not make the best of both worlds?
> >
> > If you need another Trustee immediately, well...I don't really think
> that,
> > you have a quorum without it. And an appointed trustee who lost a
> community
> > election is not a community elected trustee. It is insulting to say that
> > they are. James Heilman was the community trustee, and we still have been
> > given absolutely no specifics about his removal, just vague handwaves at
> > "lack of trust". Why, specifically, did he lose your trust? What,
> > specifically, did he supposedly do wrong?
> >
> > But if the seat absolutely must be filled, make this an interim
> appointment
> > until a new election is complete, and hold such an election as soon as
> > possible. A new election is necessary, and not having one is
> unacceptable.
> > A lot has changed since the last one, and the individual you appointed
> did
> > not pass the previous election.
> >
> > Or in other words: This is still not acceptable.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Adam Wight  > > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:09 PM Tomasz W. Kozlowski <
> > > tom...@twkozlowski.com >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Considering the results of the 2015 May Board elections, I think it
> > fair
> > > > to say that María’s appointment to the Board lacks any community
> > > legitimacy
> > > > whatsoever.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have to disagree with this statement.  Please see my analysis of the
> > > election, where I show that Sefidari would have been the top-ranked
> > > candidate if we had counted votes equally.[1]  The "oppose" votes you
> > refer
> > > to are not serving the purpose you imagine they are, of weeding out
> > > controversial candidates.
> > >
> > > Yet another hugely surprising decision from the Board, I’m sorry to
> say.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's another story... It would be nice to read the minutes of this
> > Board
> > > discussion, to see what alternatives were raised and how they were
> > > evaluated.  It would be even nicer if the broader community had been
> > > directly involved in deciding how to backfill their hatcheted
> > > representative's seat.
> > >
> > > -Adam
> > > [[mw:User:Adamw]]
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamw/Draft/Board_Election_analysis
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Anthony Cole
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
*Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive) **:: **নুরুন্নবী চৌধুরী (হাছিব)*
​
User: Hasive  |
Administrator | Bengali
Wikipedia 

fb.com/Hasive  | @nhasive
 | Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi
Several WIkipedias extended their search with functionality by Magnus that
provides them info from Wikidata. It is why you find results from any
Wikipedia on the Tamil Wikipedia for one.

There is no reason why we cannot do this everywhere.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 30 January 2016 at 00:50, SarahSV  wrote:

> Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I only
> have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as an
> editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia
> search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself, are
> regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes
> because I've mistyped something.
>
> It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on
> Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to
> articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to
> look at whole articles.
>
> We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent
> trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers
> how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions
> on people's phones, instead of Siri?
>
> This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is
> well-placed to do it.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
>
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> > I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
> > as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well
> as
> > to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many
> > people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
> > statement of work cut and pasted there.
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
> > <
> >
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant=D=1=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
> > >
> >
> > Hope this answers some of your questions,
> > Lila
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advisory board

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The purpose of a board is to function and do its job. When basic and
specialised skills are of no relevance, the board will become a mouth piece
of the organisation and that is worse. So no, you are wrong.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 29 January 2016 at 16:51, Uwe Herzke  wrote:

> I fully subscribe to that notion. The board has to be equipped with
> members, who are primarily selected for their adherence with the core
> values of the Wikiverse, the five pillars[1]. The WMF is not, and should
> never be, anything like a corporation, it's an educational charitable
> non-profit NGO.
>
> "Member of the board" is not just a job but but a trusted position based
> primarily on virtue, credibility and values.
>
> Outside advise should be fetched either ad hoc or with some kind of
> standard procedure from experts, like an advisory board.
>
> Sänger
>
> [1]https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Values
>
> > Andreas Kolbe schrieb:
> > I've never understood why corporate appointees like Guy Kawasaki or the
> > just-departed Arnnon Geshuri are voting board members, instead of being
> on
> > the Advisory Board.
> >
> > The board structure needs to be revised, and brought in line with basic
> > democratic principles.
> >
> > Andreas
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On boards and good governance: The Bottom Line

[Pete Forsyth]

+1, good info. Thanks Andy.
-Pete
[[User: Peteforsyth]]
On Jan 29, 2016 9:54 PM, "Anthony Cole"  wrote:

> That was enlightening. Thank you Andy.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > Given recent issues, I found last night's episode of 'The Bottom Line':
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bottom_Line_%28radio_programme%29
> >
> > a BBC Radio 4 discussion & BBC World Service programme, most interesting.
> >
> > Although its topic was the role of boards of directors of commercial
> > companies, much of what it had to say about the selection and training
> > of appropriate board members, and issues such as diversity,
> > skill-matching, and group psychology, was more generally applicable.
> >
> > The episode, titled 'Managing the Boardroom', is available on BBC
> iPlayer:
> >
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06yfm8d
> >
> > and as a podcast:
> >
> >
> >
> http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/5/redir/version/2.0/mediaset/audio-nondrm-download/proto/http/vpid/p03gqtgh.mp3
> >
> > One of the panellists, Margaret Heffernan:
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Heffernan
> >
> > has written on similar issues.
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

[Chris Keating]

It would be good if the voting system was built to give a clear next best
option in these circumstances.

Simple positive voting,  single transferable vote, and proportional Schulze
would all do that.

I wonder if there's any movement on the idea of a standing election
committee to consider now how the next community election will be set up?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

[James Alexander]

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> It would be good if the voting system was built to give a clear next best
> option in these circumstances.
>
> Simple positive voting,  single transferable vote, and proportional Schulze
> would all do that.
>
> I wonder if there's any movement on the idea of a standing election
> committee to consider now how the next community election will be set up?
>
> Chris



There is indeed, the board approved a resolution to create the committee
 in
November which was published recently. I've already talked a bit about it
with the members of the most recent election committee but once it was
published I was wary of moving forward with the conversion to a standing
committee until we knew exactly what was happening with James' seat. Now
that that seems to be done I'm hoping to work with everyone over the next
couple weeks to get it going.


James Alexander
Manager
Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Andy Mabbett]

"On 30 January 2016 at 14:20, Pierre-Selim  wrote:

> We should take such reports seriously, instead of trying to invalidate the
> result. The denial is hindering improvements.

It certainly wasn't my intention to deny that this occurs, nor it's
potentially devastating impact on victims - indeed, I've witnessed it
happening to friends. Nor have I seen others denying it, in this
discussion.

I was referring to the claimed prevalence ("almost one third of the
respondents were themselves the subject of revenge porn"); which is
not a credible either as a reflection of the wider community, or in
the context of this survey, in which 38% reported experiencing
harassment of any type; and which suggests a flawed sampling or
measuring process.

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Vituzzu]

Il 30/01/2016 18:12, Jane Darnell ha scritto:

I think you meant to link this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito=revision=686068089=686006551


Nope, I exactly meant the link I posted :D

Mine wasn't a criticism of Bgwhite but I wanted to point out he dealt 
with it as that was a good-faith edit.
As said I don't want to criticise him but this is, imvho, a sign of an 
overall lack of attention by us to potential harassment/libel/outing 
situations.


Vito

(meanwhile BDA, the troll above, is being "helped" by a good-faith user 
to reinstate his contents, but that's a different matter)

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Vituzzu]

A similar situation happened to me: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito=685988175=685926527 
or just a couple of days ago most of my uploads at Commons were deleted 
because a long-term abuser filled them with crappy "{{Copyviol|request 
file delegation abusive vandalisme copyright}}" tags.


I've been subjected to various forms of online harassment for years but 
I feel safe enough since I wouldn't fear any of them in RL (nor I use 
socialnetworks).


Still I must confess what can become frustrating is seeing sort of 
"tolerance" towards this kind of attack. IMnsHO anything clearly aimed 
at harassing other users should trigger a wide zero-tolerance reaction, 
regardless of any "credit" owned by the perpetrator.


Vito

Il 30/01/2016 16:18, Jane Darnell ha scritto:

I have been surprised again and again by a casual form of vandalism that
goes unchecked because it is possibly seen as humorous. Here is an example
of something I have corrected in passing (and can remember how to find in
order to link it here):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Devouard=revision=427057319=426139028

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[MZMcBride]

Lila Tretikov wrote:
>I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
>as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well
>as to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize
>many people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
>statement of work cut and pasted there.
>
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/15294825

Thank you for this post, Lila. It provides a lot of helpful context and
understanding surrounding the Knight Foundation's recent restricted grant.
One part of this arrangement still confuses me. In the linked post, you
write, "With this grant we brought the idea to the funder and they
supported our work with this grant."

Why ask for and take the money? The Wikimedia Foundation can raise
$250,000 in a few days (maybe hours) by placing ads on a few large
Wikipedias soliciting donations. Why take on a restricted grant, with its
necessary reporting overhead and other administrative costs?

You also write:
---
Why should the community and staff support this decision of our board and
leadership?

I would hope that for staff, the answer to this question is clear.
---

This is very aggressive. I'm not sure this type of attitude is aligned
with an idealistic, non-profit educational organization.

For the general issue, you point out that the Wikimedia Foundation Board
of Trustees is required to approve large (over $100,000) restricted
grants. I think the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (copied) should
modify its acceptance requirements to mandate that large restricted grants
have their grant agreements and other related paperwork publicly
published. This would not apply retroactively. Publishing the grant
paperwork fits in well well with our transparency principles and values.

For the specific issue, who can be contacted at the Knight Foundation to
ask about publishing the grant paperwork? Presumably the Knight Foundation
and the Wikimedia Foundation, having just partnered, share values. Is the
Knight Foundation okay with the full grant agreement being published?

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

[Carlos M. Colina]

Felicidades, María!!

It's refreshing to see you back as a member of the Board. The movement 
needs your wisdom, experience, clarity and attitude!! <3


M.

El 29/01/2016 a las 05:27 p.m., Patricio Lorente escribió:

Dear all,


I am happy to announce the Board intends to fill the open community Trustee
seat at our meeting this weekend. On Saturday, María Sefidari will accept
an appointment to the Board of Trustees, stepping into the third
community-nominated seat. The appointment will last the remainder of the
two year term, until Wikimania 2017.


Many of you know María. She previously served as a community-selected
Trustee from August 2013 to July 2015. In the most recent 2015 community
elections, she received the next highest support percentage, and highest
number of support votes. She was born and lives in Madrid, Spain, and has
been a contributor to the Wikimedia projects since 2006. She was a founding
member of Spanish Wikipedia's LGBT Wikiproject, Wikimedia España, and
Wikimujeres Grupo de Usuarias. She has also served on the Affiliations and
Individual Engagement Grants committees. María is passionate about the role
of diversity in our strategic efforts to retain and increase editorship,
and improving channels for community participation in Foundation governance
and policymaking.


We consulted with the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee before
deciding how to proceed in identifying a new Trustee. They offered
thoughtful feedback on the possible available options, and we’re grateful
for their considerations. (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015

)


We are certain many of you are wondering why we decided against holding
another election. We did consider the option, but the disadvantages
outweighed the benefits. The last election was well-attended, and still
quite recent. Holding a new election would take considerable time, and we
have important issues to address in the near future. It was important to us
that the community perspective is fully represented in these conversations,
without delay. We also didn’t want to distract from the affiliate Trustee
selection process, which is coming up soon.


I am excited by the dedication, compassion, and experience María brings to
the Board at a crucial time. We are confident she will serve our mission
with wisdom and grace.


Please join me in congratulating our friend María, and thanking her service
to our movement.


Patricio

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



--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."

Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | 
www.wikimedia.org.ve 

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Haitham Shammaa]

Hi Tobias,

In addition to Maggie's attempt to explain why the numbers might seem high,
the reported percentages on slide #17 are not out of the total pool of
respondents (~3800) but out of those who reported experiencing harassment
(~1200).

e.g. as there were 740 respondents reported "revenge porn", this brings the
percentage down to 19% out of the general pool of respondents, and in the
range of up to 25% in regard to other categories of harassment.

That said, even with 18-25%, I think this is still rather on the high end
of the spectrum. My alternative theory to explain this is around the used
terminology in the survey. Terms like "revenge porn" or "doxing" are still
comparatively new [1] [2] to casual internet users, not to mention to good
faith Wikipedia contributors, and chances that some of the respondents
confused them for something else (porn, or revenge .. etc) is not an
unlikely scenario.

[1] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=revenge%20porn
[2] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=doxxing

Hope this helps.

*--*
*Haitham Shammaa*
*Senior Strategist*
*Wikimedia Foundation*

*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a
reality!*

*--*
*Haitham Shammaa*
*Senior Strategist*
*Wikimedia Foundation*

*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a
reality!*

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Tobias 
wrote:

> Thank you Patrick.
>
> The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by
> how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment
> respondents cite.
>
> User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of
> respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats
> of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking.
>
> Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of
> revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit
> or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
>
>
> Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
>
> Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or
> they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's
> going on in this community.
>
>
> Tobias
>
> * I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of
> users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been
> harassed or maybe harassed (54%).
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Risker]

Some of the things that users might consider "revenge porn" would include
porn that is sent to them via email (either images or text - both of which
I've received), or images/comments posted to their userspace or to other
places where it was intended to come to their attention (e.g., obviously
inappropriate images posted to article talk pages).  Links and "easter
eggs" leading to similar content could also be considered "revenge porn".
Context is often important. In particular, the Wikimedia projects host a
vast quantity of images and media that are appropriate to a limited number
of articles but would be inappropriate or even offensive in other
presentations.

Risker/Anne

On 30 January 2016 at 13:37, Haitham Shammaa  wrote:

> Hi Tobias,
>
> In addition to Maggie's attempt to explain why the numbers might seem high,
> the reported percentages on slide #17 are not out of the total pool of
> respondents (~3800) but out of those who reported experiencing harassment
> (~1200).
>
> e.g. as there were 740 respondents reported "revenge porn", this brings the
> percentage down to 19% out of the general pool of respondents, and in the
> range of up to 25% in regard to other categories of harassment.
>
> That said, even with 18-25%, I think this is still rather on the high end
> of the spectrum. My alternative theory to explain this is around the used
> terminology in the survey. Terms like "revenge porn" or "doxing" are still
> comparatively new [1] [2] to casual internet users, not to mention to good
> faith Wikipedia contributors, and chances that some of the respondents
> confused them for something else (porn, or revenge .. etc) is not an
> unlikely scenario.
>
> [1] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=revenge%20porn
> [2] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=doxxing
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> *--*
> *Haitham Shammaa*
> *Senior Strategist*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a
> reality!*
>
> *--*
> *Haitham Shammaa*
> *Senior Strategist*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a
> reality!*
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Tobias  >
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Patrick.
> >
> > The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by
> > how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment
> > respondents cite.
> >
> > User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of
> > respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats
> > of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking.
> >
> > Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of
> > revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit
> > or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
> >
> >
> > Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
> >
> > Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or
> > they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's
> > going on in this community.
> >
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> > * I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of
> > users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been
> > harassed or maybe harassed (54%).
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Jane Darnell]

I think you meant to link this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito=revision=686068089=686006551

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Vituzzu  wrote:

> A similar situation happened to me:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito=685988175=685926527
> or just a couple of days ago most of my uploads at Commons were deleted
> because a long-term abuser filled them with crappy "{{Copyviol|request file
> delegation abusive vandalisme copyright}}" tags.
>
> I've been subjected to various forms of online harassment for years but I
> feel safe enough since I wouldn't fear any of them in RL (nor I use
> socialnetworks).
>
> Still I must confess what can become frustrating is seeing sort of
> "tolerance" towards this kind of attack. IMnsHO anything clearly aimed at
> harassing other users should trigger a wide zero-tolerance reaction,
> regardless of any "credit" owned by the perpetrator.
>
> Vito
>
> Il 30/01/2016 16:18, Jane Darnell ha scritto:
>
>> I have been surprised again and again by a casual form of vandalism that
>> goes unchecked because it is possibly seen as humorous. Here is an example
>> of something I have corrected in passing (and can remember how to find in
>> order to link it here):
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Devouard=revision=427057319=426139028
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Sydney Poore 
>> wrote:
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

While we're at it...diversity remains a very serious problem for the
Board.  Does the community voting process want to try to take that on?  
How

would we do such a thing?

Risker/Anne



I think here we only have two options:

1) To decide that one (or two) of the community-elected seats is only 
given to a certain group of people, for example, women, or residents of 
the Global South (in which case, obviously, the latter should be defined 
properly - I already indicate previously that currently Russia and 
Moldova are counted as Global North, and Ukraine and Belarus as Global 
South which affects e.g. Wikimania fellowships - nobody seems to care). 
This would probably mean a separate contest for these seats and the 
general contest for the remaining ones.


2) To decide that the diversity should be ensured by appointed and 
possibly by chapter-selected seats. This is pretty much what we are 
doing now.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Andy Mabbett]

On 30 January 2016 at 13:14, Tobias  wrote:

> Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of
> revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit
> or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
>
>
> Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
>
> Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or
> they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's
> going on in this community.

Possibly an artefact of a self-selecting audience.

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Pierre-Selim]

As an oversighter on Wikimedia Commons, I have witness what has been
described by Maggie and Philippe.

We should take such reports seriously, instead of trying to invalidate the
result. The denial is hindering improvements.
Le 30 janv. 2016 3:03 PM, "Maggie Dennis"  a écrit :

> Hi, Tobias.
>
> The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
> pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is
> not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems
> to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to
> drive them away.
>
> Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected
> that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the
> prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have* seen
> in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all
> different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks
> of one kind or another are sadly really common.
>
> Best,
>
> Maggie
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Maggie,
> >
> > On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
> > > In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
> > > (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind
> of
> > > harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
> > > Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of
> the
> > > individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where
> existing
> > > pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
> > > misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in
> > complaints
> > > of this happening to both men and women.
> >
> > thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
> >
> > At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of
> > themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to
> > find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how
> > this very high percentage can be explained.
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Maggie Dennis
> Director, Support and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Tobias]

Hi Maggie,

On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
> In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
> (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
> harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
> Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the
> individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing
> pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
> misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints
> of this happening to both men and women.

thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.

At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of
themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to
find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how
this very high percentage can be explained.

Tobias



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[philippe]

Maggie gave the answer:  "and cases where existing
pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
misattributed as being them."

It isn't dependent on an actual published photo. You can take any old photo, 
slap "Philippe beau fete" on it, and run with it. (You CANbut please don't.)

--
Philippe Beaudette
philippe.beaude...@icloud.com

> On Jan 30, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Tobias  wrote:
> 
> Hi Maggie,
> 
>> On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
>> In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
>> (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
>> harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
>> Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the
>> individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing
>> pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
>> misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints
>> of this happening to both men and women.
> 
> thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
> 
> At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of
> themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to
> find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how
> this very high percentage can be explained.
> 
> Tobias
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Maggie Dennis]

Hi, Tobias.

In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
(unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the
individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing
pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints
of this happening to both men and women.

Best,

Maggie



On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Tobias 
wrote:

> Thank you Patrick.
>
> The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by
> how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment
> respondents cite.
>
> User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of
> respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats
> of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking.
>
> Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of
> revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit
> or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
>
>
> Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
>
> Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or
> they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's
> going on in this community.
>
>
> Tobias
>
> * I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of
> users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been
> harassed or maybe harassed (54%).
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Maggie Dennis
Director, Support and Safety
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Maggie Dennis]

Hi, Tobias.

The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is
not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems
to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to
drive them away.

Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected
that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the
prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have* seen
in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all
different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks
of one kind or another are sadly really common.

Best,

Maggie



On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias 
wrote:

> Hi Maggie,
>
> On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
> > In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
> > (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
> > harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
> > Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the
> > individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing
> > pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
> > misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in
> complaints
> > of this happening to both men and women.
>
> thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
>
> At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of
> themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to
> find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how
> this very high percentage can be explained.
>
> Tobias
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Maggie Dennis
Director, Support and Safety
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Tobias]

Thank you Patrick.

The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by
how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment
respondents cite.

User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of
respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats
of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking.

Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of
revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit
or sexualised photos of without one's consent".


Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?

Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or
they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's
going on in this community.


Tobias

* I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of
users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been
harassed or maybe harassed (54%).

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Tobias]

Right. Thanks Philippe and Maggie!

Tobias

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Todd Allen]

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised either. Can't discuss details for obvious
reasons, but some of the stuff I saw while on the ArbCom would really make
your hair curl. Trolls can get pretty vicious.

Todd

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Tobias 
wrote:

> Right. Thanks Philippe and Maggie!
>
> Tobias
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Sydney Poore]

Hi Tobias,

Like Maggie, I was not surprised that people (both men and women) were
reporting revenge porn because I know of reports in the Wikimedia
community, but like her I was surprised that this survey showed
revenge porn being reported by this many people.

But it is not surprising that the people who experienced the worst
types of harassment, or type that the WMF and wikimedia community is
the least able to address would respond to this survey.

Without further verification, I would not suggest the 65% figure to be
representative of the whole wikimedia community of people who are
harassed. Most people understand that this type of survey sample would
not produce results that are representative of the whole community.

But it does show an example of a type of extreme harassment that
poorly understood by the community. This information can help educate
the WMF and the wikimedia community, and hopefully will help find
better ways of assisting the people being harassed.

Sydney



Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration


On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Maggie Dennis  wrote:
> Hi, Tobias.
>
> The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
> pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is
> not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems
> to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to
> drive them away.
>
> Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected
> that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the
> prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have* seen
> in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all
> different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks
> of one kind or another are sadly really common.
>
> Best,
>
> Maggie
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Maggie,
>>
>> On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
>> > In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
>> > (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
>> > harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
>> > Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the
>> > individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing
>> > pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
>> > misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in
>> complaints
>> > of this happening to both men and women.
>>
>> thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
>>
>> At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of
>> themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to
>> find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how
>> this very high percentage can be explained.
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Maggie Dennis
> Director, Support and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Jane Darnell]

I have been surprised again and again by a casual form of vandalism that
goes unchecked because it is possibly seen as humorous. Here is an example
of something I have corrected in passing (and can remember how to find in
order to link it here):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Devouard=revision=427057319=426139028

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:

> Hi Tobias,
>
> Like Maggie, I was not surprised that people (both men and women) were
> reporting revenge porn because I know of reports in the Wikimedia
> community, but like her I was surprised that this survey showed
> revenge porn being reported by this many people.
>
> But it is not surprising that the people who experienced the worst
> types of harassment, or type that the WMF and wikimedia community is
> the least able to address would respond to this survey.
>
> Without further verification, I would not suggest the 65% figure to be
> representative of the whole wikimedia community of people who are
> harassed. Most people understand that this type of survey sample would
> not produce results that are representative of the whole community.
>
> But it does show an example of a type of extreme harassment that
> poorly understood by the community. This information can help educate
> the WMF and the wikimedia community, and hopefully will help find
> better ways of assisting the people being harassed.
>
> Sydney
>
>
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wikipedian in Residence
> at Cochrane Collaboration
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
> > Hi, Tobias.
> >
> > The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
> > pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution
> is
> > not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent
> seems
> > to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to
> > drive them away.
> >
> > Of course, I don't know the stories of all the respondents who selected
> > that - not even a substantial percentage of them. I was surprised by the
> > prevalence, too, but maybe not as surprised as you given what I *have*
> seen
> > in nearly 5 years of working in this area at the WMF. People try all
> > different kinds of ways to try to hurt each other, and sexualized attacks
> > of one kind or another are sadly really common.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Maggie
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Tobias <
> church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Maggie,
> >>
> >> On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
> >> > In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
> >> > (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind
> of
> >> > harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
> >> > Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of
> the
> >> > individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where
> existing
> >> > pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
> >> > misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in
> >> complaints
> >> > of this happening to both men and women.
> >>
> >> thank you for providing further insights. That is really concerning.
> >>
> >> At the same time, a great majority of users do not publish photos of
> >> themselves, and don't publish their name (which would allow others to
> >> find available photos elsewhere), so it is still a mystery to me how
> >> this very high percentage can be explained.
> >>
> >> Tobias
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Maggie Dennis
> > Director, Support and Safety
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

[Risker]

Well, the easiest way to determine a "next best" option is to build it into
the bylaws.  It's clear what would happen if, before an appointment, a
"selected" candidate was found to be problematic - it goes to the 4th place
candidate - but the bylaws don't go into what happens post appointment.
Really, the selection of who steps up if a trustee-elect or trustee post
appointment leaves/is removed from the Board has nothing much to do with
the voting system.  Once the vote is done and the candidates are ranked,
that's the end of it.  It's whether or not the results of the most recent
vote will be used to replace a trustee-elect or trustee post appointment
that is only partially answered at this time.

I'd be supportive of changing to a system that doesn't overweight
opposition to a candidate,but any replacement system should be very easily
understood by voters.  The Schulze system is remarkably easy to game, was
definitely misunderstood by many voters, and often resulted in candidates
nobody wanted getting ranked higher than candidates that people were
indifferent about.  Organizations that used to use forms of the Schulze
system have largely moved away from it and use other systems now that are
more intuitive for voters. Hardly anyone in the WIkimedia world would even
know about the Schulze system if it hadn't been selected many years back;
retrospective review of that decision process showed it was very flawed and
was based at least in part on the Enwiki article about the Schulze system -
an article that has needed cleanup since at least 2006.

There are plenty of voting systems out there that are intended to give
multiple-winner results.  I'd like to see something selected that is (a)
designed to give multiple winners, (b) is simple and intuitive for voters
and (c) has some sort of process for voters to identify clearly the
candidates they feel are very inappropriate for the role.

While we're at it...diversity remains a very serious problem for the
Board.  Does the community voting process want to try to take that on?  How
would we do such a thing?

Risker/Anne

On 30 January 2016 at 04:00, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> It would be good if the voting system was built to give a clear next best
> option in these circumstances.
>
> Simple positive voting,  single transferable vote, and proportional Schulze
> would all do that.
>
> I wonder if there's any movement on the idea of a standing election
> committee to consider now how the next community election will be set up?
>
> Chris
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[Trillium Corsage]

30.01.2016, 14:03, "Maggie Dennis" :

> The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
> pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is
> not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems
> to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to
> drive them away.

That was the story of Lightbreather, a English Wiipedia editor that 
self-identified as female. She ran afoul of some other editor that (IIRC, I'm 
confident this is basically correct) that labeled some images on a porn site as 
being her (they were labeled "Lightbreather"). The outcome (GET THIS!) was that 
she (Lightbreather!) was formally banned by Arbcom for complaining about it at 
Wikipedia. They said she was "outing" the culprit by calling attention to his 
off-wiki activities.  

Horrendous I know and tends to shows that Arbcom and the rest of Enwiki 
administrative structure genuinely have a problem with women, which they are 
often alleged to (i.e. in Gamergate and all that).

Trillium Corsage

PS: A similar thing happened to editor Kiefer Wolfowitz. After seeking in vain 
to get a email reply about another editor that was exhibiting 
curious-approaching-alarming interactions with boys and young men, he sought, 
in measured terms, comments from the arbs and WMF staff on WIkipedia. Arbcom 
then banned Kiefer, protecting the editor in question with whom at least one of 
the arbs (Wormthatturned) was very friendly. I guess a year or so after that, 
the WMF quietly issued a no-comment "SanFranBan" against the editor Kiefer had 
complained about. Which would indicate Kiefer had a legitimate concern all 
along. 

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