Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Michael Peel]

This seems to be a restriction against employers asking for someone’s salary 
history, not against including the expected salary range in a job advert. 
Having occasionally looked at WMF job adverts, it’s always seemed odd to me 
that the salary ranges haven’t been mentioned at all (my occasional questions 
about this went unanswered). Personally, I would never apply for a position 
that doesn’t have an advertised salary range, and I can only imagine how this 
would affect those that aren’t white men. It’s probably particularly important 
in the case of San Francisco to figure out if it would even be a practical 
living wage.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 11 Sep 2020, at 12:00, Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:
> 
> Asking candidates for their current salary is prohibited in San Francisco
> as of July 2018 [1] which means that, as a San Francisco based
> organisation, the Foundation will undoubtedly not be doing this. To my
> knowledge, this wasn't done by the Foundation before either, but we can
> confidently state that it won't be done now.
> 
> There are some complexities in disclosing salary ranges for the Foundation.
> One practice that can be used for encouraging diversity in candidate
> applications is to specify that a position is open to candidates with a
> wide range of experience and in all locations in the world, in which case
> the salary range posted will be so large that it will basically be
> meaningless. On the other hand, another good practice for encouraging
> diversity is to source internally for senior positions, which opens up more
> junior roles that can be sourced externally, in which case a salary range
> can be more meaningful and helpful. It's hard to figure out what the right
> balance is.
> 
> Regardless, more public transparency in salary banding would be good to see.
> 
> Dan
> 
> [1]:
> https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/san-francisco-bans-salary-history-questions.aspx
> 
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 10:44, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
> 
>> Good morning everyone!
>> 
>> There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at least
>> salary ranges, on job ads.
>> 
>> An increasing body of evidence(2) shows that practices like not disclosing
>> expected pay, and requiring applicants to disclose their current salary, is
>> harmful to equity in the workplace.
>> 
>> Not disclosing salaries affects pay levels within the organisation -
>> because white men are usually relatively confident in negotiating their
>> salaries upwards, so tend to end up with a better deal.
>> 
>> It can also affect the diversity of candidates who apply. Candidates who
>> have stronger networks within the industry they're moving into (again, more
>> commonly white men with privileged social and educational backgrounds) also
>> have clear expectations because they are 'in the know' about industry
>> norms, while people who don't, find the lack of salary information a
>> barrier to application. (After all, why take the time and effort to apply
>> for a job when you have no idea how the likely pay compares to your current
>> employment?)
>> 
>> I know practices vary within the movement - I believe the WMF never
>> mentions salaries on ads, and I don't know whether the range is disclosed
>> to applicants or not - some chapters I know do advertise a salary. However,
>> I'd urge all entities within the movement that hire staff to disclose the
>> expected salary ranges for posts they are advertising, as part of their
>> commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
>> 
>> Thanks for reading,
>> 
>> Chris
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> (1): https://showthesalary.com/
>> (2): e.g. at https://showthesalary.com/resources/
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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 and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feedback requested] Taxonomy of knowledge gaps

[Samuel Klein]

Wow.  Thanks for doing this.
 a) did you mine emijrp's subconscious yet?
 b) what meta-gaps are you aware of (areas where the gap analysis itself
might have blind spots)
 c) this seems appropriate for a wikijournal
 of knowledge...

🌍🌏🌎🌑

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 6:48 PM Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I hope this email finds you well.
>
> I'm reaching out to let you know that the Research team [1] at the
> Wikimedia Foundation has been working on developing a taxonomy of
> knowledge gaps for the Wikimedia projects. We now have the first draft
> of the taxonomy ready and we're seeking your input to improve it.
>
> ==Why are we contacting you?==
> The taxonomy of knowledge gaps aims to be a high level representation
> and grouping of the different knowledge gaps Wikimedia projects face
> today. Each of you, whether you are a volunteer editor, patroller,
> organizer, affiliate, etc. have valuable on the ground knowledge of
> the different types of knowledge gaps. We believe it's important to
> hear from you before we finalize the taxonomy.
>
> ==Material==
> The material you may need to review is listed at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Learn_more
> !
> . I will list them below as well, for archive completeness:
>
> * A summary of the taxonomy and motivation:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Knowledge_Gaps_Taxonomy_Summary-and-Motivation.pdf
>
> * Full paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12314
>
> * A video presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP3uXA9bfvU or
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_Gaps_Taxonomy.mp4.webm
> (same video on two platforms)
>
> ==Feedback==
> Please provide your feedback by answering the 6 questions posted at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Feedback_collection_September_2020
> .
>
> We're collecting feedback until 2020-09-30.
>
> ==Talk with us==
> If you have questions about the taxonomy and you'd like to talk with
> us in a synchronous set-up, we invite you to join us in the upcoming
> Research Showcase
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2020
> . We will have a very short presentation about it and will leave 15-20
> min for any questions you may have. We are also happy to set up more
> time to answer your questions if there is demand for it.
>
> ==Disclaimer==
> As you're going through the material we have shared with you, you will
> see imperfections and rooms for improvement. I acknowledge that they
> exist and they may be numerous. We could spend another month and
> improve the documents. We made the call to not let perfect be the
> enemy of good. Please keep that in mind, assume good faith, and ask
> questions if any part of what you read is not clear to you. We're here
> to engage and answer your questions, and ultimately learn about your
> perspective.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Leila, on behalf of
> Martin Gerlach, Research Scientist, WMF
> Isaac Johnson, Research Scientist, WMF
> Miriam Redi, Senior Research Scientist, WMF
> Leila Zia, Head of Research, WMF
>
> [1] https://research.wikimedia.org/team.html
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Paul J. Weiss]

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 believe that opinion should be stated as such. When I see
opinion being spun as fact, I am less interested in reading the rest of
such a message, and that writer loses credibility in my eyes.

Paul

- Original Message -
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
From: "Peter Southwood" 
Date: 9/11/20 4:20 am
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 

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
official explanation.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Asaf Bartov
Sent: 11 September 2020 11:46
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

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 broader audience.

Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
without effort.

As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
to be heard.

A.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> 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: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> 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 you want us to leave this list just
> so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> accepted as a norm)
>
> The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who
> are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> >
> > 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 open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> >> Kind regards
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> _

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Paul J. Weiss]

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 the sender. I know that I sometimes come across as being uncivil and/or
disrespectful. I appreciate when someone points out a specific example,
because that provides me an opportunity to change to more civil- and
respectful-sounding communication, which will have a better chance of
succeeding (in whatever the purpose of my communication is).

Many posters seem, like Peter, to want quantitative, legalistic, binary
"right/wrong" guidance. Considering the gender identities "man" and
"woman", this preference is more typical of men than women in "Western"
civilization. Many women (and some men) prefer more qualitative,
contextual, nuanced guidance. (I don't know prevalences for other gender
identities.) I think it is important to understand that our personal
preference is not automatically the preference of others.

Personally, I hope the moderators are considering moderation for several
posters beyond Dan.

Paul

- Original Message -
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
From: "Asaf Bartov" 
Date: 9/11/20 2:46 am
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 

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 broader audience.

Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
without effort.

As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
to be heard.

A.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> 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: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> 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 you want us to leave this list just
> so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> accepted as a norm)
>
> The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who
> are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> >
> > 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 open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> >> Kind regards
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Clinic #010 - Tue Sep 15th 13:00UTC - Abstract Wikipedia

[Asaf Bartov]

Dear Wikimedians,

This is an update from the Wikimedia Clinics series.[1]

On Tuesday, September 15th, at 13:00 UTC[2], we will be hosting Wikimedia
Clinic #010.[3]  The scheduled segment this time would be an introduction
to Abstract Wikipedia, featuring project founder Denny Vrandečić himself!

As always, beyond this scheduled segment, there will be time to bring up
any Wikimedia-related questions or topics other call attendees are
interested in.

Hope to see you there!

   A.

[1] Wikimedia Clinics are live video calls hosted by the Community
Development team, as a way to keep in touch during the pandemic, and offer
an opportunity to ask questions, share recent work, brainstorm ideas, etc.
In addition to whatever topics attendees bring up on the spot, there is a
pre-schedule segment in each call.  Read more at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Clinics

[2] this time, the time of day was chosen to accommodate the ESEAP region,
in particular.

[3] Google Meet[4] link: https://meet.google.com/dsd-rypz-xjf

[4] Our experiment using Jitsi-based Wikimedia Meet resulted in a clear
conclusion that it is not a suitable platform for Wikimedia Clinic calls,
as it cannot reliable handle more than about 10 people, as we learned the
hard way at Clinic #009.

Asaf Bartov (he/him/his)

Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities

Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l]

{{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 never scolded for that so I think 
we can express criticism). Maybe not all the time, maybe not just in any 
format. 

 I made the initial comment, and no one pushed me into.  If it has offended 
people, I am sorry, maybe I should in effect have reached out to Dan privately 
first. Dan I am sorry of the attention, your wording is being given, and I 
would like us to move on, as suggested by Alphos to a more constructive debate. 

Pete, because your are asking repeatedly for clarification and only because of 
that, what I have learned from my #black lives matter friends, it that s not my 
obligation to educate you on why this is problematic.  In fact when you ask for 
clarifications, you are putting pressure on people who find the use of 
disrespectful language a problem instead of  asking why the initial comment had 
to include flatulistic scenery (and this for French speakers has nothing to do 
with Brice de Nice’s expression « ça farte » see for reference 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhZ_kkVzx18 
) which blurrs the actual meaning 
behind the criticisml, especially for people whose language is not English in 
the first place. Then one could argue that it is targeting people of an 
institution. Full stop. 

I wish to  move on to why I believe spaces should be moderated, which basically 
would mean enforcing a code of conduct, that many members of our community have 
been asking for for years.

 « As I am a nice guy » I will give a few ressources explaining why I think 
lists, and wikimedia spaces should be moderated. Basically it is because you 
can : 

1- allow free roaming speech and leaving agressive behaviours unchecked 
creating a space where only certain social groups are over represented but thus 
you can’t claim to be designing the sum of all human knowledge

OR 

2 - design free open source inclusive spaces  that are allowing anyone to 
participate but you then have to moderate content because, people have 
different « cultures" and may not understand what offends others, there is a 
learning curve. 

Here is  a timeline of incidents 
https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents#2018for 
 

This time line of incidents is often cited by women as a reason for having OS 
code of conducts (which includes moderation of mailing lists most of the time) 

History tells us, that in the early internet days, the first experiments of 
virtual spaces encountered less harassment and more women. This is told in the 
following book : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35953464-broad-band 
, where the story of 
Stacy Horn and how she actually designed the Esat Coast Hanger (ECHO) see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Horn 
 is detailed.  Why? Because Stacy 
Horn moderated each chan and reached out to every member that left the 
community so that she would eventually know about abusive behaviours and 
document it. 

Designing a safe space does not mean you cannot address just any topic, it just 
means that you do so paying attention to how you treat potential readers, and 
contributors to create a discussion that is actually evolving around the 
subject, and not the format of it. 

A 2018 incident about wether or not a joke should be removed  
https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/  questions 
wether there is a need for a safe space or not in open source projects. I’m 
taking this example, because it shows how power and privilege iin a community 
can be used to influence « keeping a joke that is upsetting to some ». 

So the question of « censorship » is central, but it usually has a pending side 
: who is silenced, whose voice is not being heard?  I like the way the Django 
FAQ adresses the problem of « censorship » in a community 

https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/faq/ 


Quote from the above :
This is censorship! I have the right to say whatever I want

You do -- in your space. If you'd like to hang out in our spaces (as clarified 
above), we have some simple guidelines to follow. If you want to, for example, 
form a group where Django is discussed using language inappropriate for general 
channels then nobody's stopping you. We respect your right to establish 
whatever codes of conduct you want in the spaces that belong to you. Please 
honor this Code of Conduct in our spaces.


https://web.archive.org/web/20141109123859/http://speakup.io/coc.html 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[Asaf Bartov]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 6:50 PM Dan Szymborski 
wrote:

> As long as people are going to continue to talk about me and imply that I'm
> actually *harassing* people, then I feel I have a right to defend myself.
>

Nobody ever denied you that right.

I brought up that the UCoC standard is a reasonable person standard, not a
> "most offended person" standard and this was never addressed. Instead, I
> was demeaned by being placed on a special moderation protocol. Asaf Bartov
> threatened me that if I continued to defend myself -- even as people
> continued to discuss me -- that *I'm* hijacking the thread.


What I actually wrote to you, and I quote, was:

"I also must insist that you not hijack this thread, which is for
discussing the draft UCoC.  If you see value in bringing up your concerns
on those other matters on this list, please do so on separate threads.
Since you have expressed the opinion that this UCoC draft is illegitimate,
I suggest there is really no reason for you to post further on this thread,
leaving it for those who *would* like to discuss it."

I then did indeed threaten that *if you continue to disrupt the UCoC
thread*, your messages won't be let through. As you can see, your latest
letter, since it was no longer disrupting the UCoC thread, *was* let
through.

I asked Asaf if Koerner was given a similar warning for a very long, smug,
> patronizing screed about me as on-topic. Bartov reiterated that nobody else
> was given any warning about off-topic communication. Only *I* am not
> allowed to talk about *my* apparent offense.
>

Since now you quote a question you asked privately, I will quote the answer
I gave you:


"No, I did not warn Ms. Koerner about thread hijacking, because the very
problem with thread hijacking is that once the change of topic is made,
people legitimately want to respond. I have not observed Ms. Koerner
*initiating* a thread hijack.

I do encourage you to continue contributing on the list, including in
criticizing whatever flaws you find in the Foundation's actions.  I
certainly find such flaws myself.

But again, as a professional, perhaps you can be less ornery and more
measured in expressing the *substance* of your concerns. It would at the
very least be no less effective, and perhaps more so."


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[David Gerard]

If we didn't want serious discussions to come to this mailing list, or
have discussions on it taken seriously, this thread would so far be a
great example for not doing so. Thankfully, it won't actually succeed
in derailing the discussions.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[Dan Szymborski]

As long as people are going to continue to talk about me and imply that I'm
actually *harassing* people, then I feel I have a right to defend myself.

No, clear warnings weren't given. I compared the action of a *non-profit
board* tangentially to *flatulence* and I was immediately talked down to
and lectured at in a patronizing fashion. Nothing was explained, it was
just supposed to be self-evident that it *was* offensive and it *was*
across a line without a single shred of an argument that covered rules or
policy.

I brought up that the UCoC standard is a reasonable person standard, not a
"most offended person" standard and this was never addressed. Instead, I
was demeaned by being placed on a special moderation protocol. Asaf Bartov
threatened me that if I continued to defend myself -- even as people
continued to discuss me -- that *I'm* hijacking the thread. Jackie Koerner
spoke at me in an incredibly condescending, arrogant manner, presuming it
was their place to educate me so I could "learn" what I did.

I asked Asaf if Koerner was given a similar warning for a very long, smug,
patronizing screed about me as on-topic. Bartov reiterated that nobody else
was given any warning about off-topic communication. Only *I* am not
allowed to talk about *my* apparent offense.

Now "other cultures" is considered an excuse for insults far more direct
than I made with myself as the target. People like Allen and Southwood ask
for specifics and are brushed off with "well, it just is." You want to talk
about other cultures, but then don't respect our culture, where it's
extremely offensive to accuse people without evidence, start with the
assumption that the person whose opinion you don't like is in the wrong,
and hold out people for mockery.

I intentionally didn't single-out who I think the worst players on the WMF
board are. I intentionally, when tweeting this conversation and when
exchanging DMs and emails with colleagues in tech, journalism, and related
entities that make donations to Wikimedia, redact all the names and made it
clear that my beef is with the WMF and that anyone who tries to harass any
of these people are not on my side. I've even --surprisingly -- gotten a
few emails from administrators at English Wikipedia who I don't even know,
giving me support though they're concerned if they speak up, everything
will blow up even more and they will be subject to reprisals from WMF.

I daresay I've shown the individuals referenced here with far more respect
than has been shown me. I don't have any desire to "educate" people to the
"correct" opinion as a few of you do. I'm just expressing my opinion on how
the WMF board has conducted itself, I don't seek to lecture Koerner into
seeing their error of their ways or have any desire to prevent Bartov from
effectively responding to criticism as they presume to do for me.

If you enter into this conversation thinking things as harmless as
comparisons of the WMF to a fart resulting in severe penalties are things a
UCoC will successfully bring to the communities, you are dead wrong. Given
the history of communications "at" English Wikipedia from the WMF and
various Wikimedia-connected individuals causing months of turmoil, I'm
fairly certain that the target of disdainful lecturing should be targeted
at the mirror, not me.

Cheers,

Dan


On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 8:04 AM Quim Gil  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:08 AM effe iets anders  >
> wrote:
>
> > I would love us to be more gentle, but at the same time it is also
> > important to recognize diversity in character, expression and opinion.
>
>
> Well, precisely?  :)
>
> "To recognize diversity in character, expression and opinion" is crucial.
> Recognizing privilege is just as important.
>
> There is abundant evidence about strong and disrespectful language driving
> away those who actually would contribute diversity in a conversation. For
> one (usually privileged) participant that goes through moderation after
> ignoring warnings, how many (usually less or no privileged) disengage and
> leave silently to avoid or boycott disrespectful behavior? That is where
> the big loss in diversity lies.
>
> One good reason to really care about high standards of respect and civility
> is precisely to increase the diversity of our movement. Most of our "open"
> discussion channels are not open at all. Full participation in these
> channels is in practice quite exclusive. Those who thrive are privileged
> persons who can handle an aggressive communication style or even enjoy it.
> Wikimedia-l is no exception, and the UCoC thread is a typical example.
>
> More and more contributors are taking action to change this trend, and this
> is one of the best things happening right now in our movement.
>
> --
> Quim Gil (he/him)
> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Gergő Tisza]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:44 AM Chris Keating 
wrote:

> There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at least
> salary ranges, on job ads.
> (...)
> I know practices vary within the movement - I believe the WMF never
> mentions salaries on ads, and I don't know whether the range is disclosed
> to applicants or not - some chapters I know do advertise a salary. However,
> I'd urge all entities within the movement that hire staff to disclose the
> expected salary ranges for posts they are advertising, as part of their
> commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
>

FWIW, the WMF does at least disclose its salary ranges internally to staff,
which I think does a lot to help with more equitable compensation. I hope
they will disclose publicly some day; until then, if you work at the WMF,
you can help by entering your salary into transparency projects like
Glassdoor [1].

Also, executive compensation is public due to US legal requirements for
charitable organizations, and is tracked on meta [2]. Probably not that
helpful to most candidates, but might be used to calibrate overall pay
levels compared to other organizations.

[1]
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Wikimedia-Foundation-Salaries-E38331.htm
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Gergő Tisza]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 6:25 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

> I'd hope that the WMF when hiring people in what was considered third world
> or in areas of socially deprived wages that it would pay at least to US
> standards as a matter of principle that employees doing similar jobs should
> basically be treated equally regardless of location.  That where the pay
> and conditions exceed the US the WMF should be ensuring that people there
> are being paid comparable salaries for the similar positions in that
> location, US wages and conditions arent the best for many of their
> positions but that should be no excuse for hiring people at lower
> conditions.
>
> Socially the biggest issue is the exploitation of cheap labour because
> companies can, the WMF should be doing better than that if truly believes
> in equality in the movement
>

One could make the argument that the WMF contributes magnitudes more to
global equity by its work on the Wikimedia mission than by paying staff
members, so having half as many staff members for twice the wage in cheaper
regions is an extremely poor trade-off for advancing equity.
(Of course, by the same line of reasoning, San Francisco would be a highly
questionable choice for headquarters.)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[Robert Fernandez]

This is all so predictably tiresome.  Any attempt to center a discussion
forum on its intended purpose is hijacked by people outraged that they are
deprived of their own personal soapboxes.

I see this matter is spilling over into multiple threads.  I propose that
objectors start a new thread to discuss the relative merits of flatulent
language and keep all the discussion there to prevent it from stinking up
the rest of the forum.  Please limit yourself to one long message and make
sure you firmly expel this issue from your systems so we can all
collectively move forward.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Gnangarra]

I'd hope that the WMF when hiring people in what was considered third world
or in areas of socially deprived wages that it would pay at least to US
standards as a matter of principle that employees doing similar jobs should
basically be treated equally regardless of location.  That where the pay
and conditions exceed the US the WMF should be ensuring that people there
are being paid comparable salaries for the similar positions in that
location, US wages and conditions arent the best for many of their
positions but that should be no excuse for hiring people at lower
conditions.

Socially the biggest issue is the exploitation of cheap labour because
companies can, the WMF should be doing better than that if truly believes
in equality in the movement


On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 20:11, Nathan  wrote:

> I'm sure it will vary considerably. Does that matter? When measuring
> internal equity, do we measure based on how expensive of a  lifestyle each
> employee leads?
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 7:46 AM Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Should they? Their cost of living expenses may vary considerably.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf
> > Of Nathan
> > Sent: 11 September 2020 13:39
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries
> on
> > job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > Shouldn't two candidates for the same position for the same company get
> > roughly the same salary, regardless of where they live?
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 7:00 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Asking candidates for their current salary is prohibited in San
> Francisco
> > > as of July 2018 [1] which means that, as a San Francisco based
> > > organisation, the Foundation will undoubtedly not be doing this. To my
> > > knowledge, this wasn't done by the Foundation before either, but we can
> > > confidently state that it won't be done now.
> > >
> > > There are some complexities in disclosing salary ranges for the
> > Foundation.
> > > One practice that can be used for encouraging diversity in candidate
> > > applications is to specify that a position is open to candidates with a
> > > wide range of experience and in all locations in the world, in which
> case
> > > the salary range posted will be so large that it will basically be
> > > meaningless. On the other hand, another good practice for encouraging
> > > diversity is to source internally for senior positions, which opens up
> > more
> > > junior roles that can be sourced externally, in which case a salary
> range
> > > can be more meaningful and helpful. It's hard to figure out what the
> > right
> > > balance is.
> > >
> > > Regardless, more public transparency in salary banding would be good to
> > > see.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > [1]:
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-
> > updates/pages/san-francisco-bans-salary-history-questions.aspx
> > <
> https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/san-francisco-bans-salary-history-questions.aspx
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 10:44, Chris Keating <
> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good morning everyone!
> > > >
> > > > There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at
> > > least
> > > > salary ranges, on job ads.
> > > >
> > > > An increasing body of evidence(2) shows that practices like not
> > > disclosing
> > > > expected pay, and requiring applicants to disclose their current
> > salary,
> > > is
> > > > harmful to equity in the workplace.
> > > >
> > > > Not disclosing salaries affects pay levels within the organisation -
> > > > because white men are usually relatively confident in negotiating
> their
> > > > salaries upwards, so tend to end up with a better deal.
> > > >
> > > > It can also affect the diversity of candidates who apply. Candidates
> > who
> > > > have stronger networks within the industry they're moving into
> (again,
> > > more
> > > > commonly white men with privileged social and educational
> backgrounds)
> > > also
> > > > have clear expectations because they are 'in the know' about industry
> > > > norms, while people who don't, find the lack of salary information a
> > > > barrier to application. (After all, why take the time and effort to
> > apply
> > > > for a job when you have no idea how the likely pay compares to your
> > > current
> > > > employment?)
> > > >
> > > > I know practices vary within the movement - I believe the WMF never
> > > > mentions salaries on ads, and I don't know whether the range is
> > disclosed
> > > > to applicants or not - some chapters I know do advertise a salary.
> > > However,
> > > > I'd urge all entities within the movement that hire staff to disclose
> > the
> > > > expected s

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Peter Southwood]

On one side it would be nice to pay equal rate for equal work, on the other
would be equal personal benefit for equal work. Then there is the economics
of getting value for money, and the politics of diversity. It is a tricky
issue.
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Nathan
Sent: 11 September 2020 14:10
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on
job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

I'm sure it will vary considerably. Does that matter? When measuring
internal equity, do we measure based on how expensive of a  lifestyle each
employee leads?

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 7:46 AM Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Should they? Their cost of living expenses may vary considerably.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Nathan
> Sent: 11 September 2020 13:39
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries
on
> job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity
>
> Dan,
>
> Shouldn't two candidates for the same position for the same company get
> roughly the same salary, regardless of where they live?
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 7:00 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
> > Asking candidates for their current salary is prohibited in San
Francisco
> > as of July 2018 [1] which means that, as a San Francisco based
> > organisation, the Foundation will undoubtedly not be doing this. To my
> > knowledge, this wasn't done by the Foundation before either, but we can
> > confidently state that it won't be done now.
> >
> > There are some complexities in disclosing salary ranges for the
> Foundation.
> > One practice that can be used for encouraging diversity in candidate
> > applications is to specify that a position is open to candidates with a
> > wide range of experience and in all locations in the world, in which
case
> > the salary range posted will be so large that it will basically be
> > meaningless. On the other hand, another good practice for encouraging
> > diversity is to source internally for senior positions, which opens up
> more
> > junior roles that can be sourced externally, in which case a salary
range
> > can be more meaningful and helpful. It's hard to figure out what the
> right
> > balance is.
> >
> > Regardless, more public transparency in salary banding would be good to
> > see.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> >
>
>
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-
> updates/pages/san-francisco-bans-salary-history-questions.aspx
>

> >
> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 10:44, Chris Keating 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Good morning everyone!
> > >
> > > There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at
> > least
> > > salary ranges, on job ads.
> > >
> > > An increasing body of evidence(2) shows that practices like not
> > disclosing
> > > expected pay, and requiring applicants to disclose their current
> salary,
> > is
> > > harmful to equity in the workplace.
> > >
> > > Not disclosing salaries affects pay levels within the organisation -
> > > because white men are usually relatively confident in negotiating
their
> > > salaries upwards, so tend to end up with a better deal.
> > >
> > > It can also affect the diversity of candidates who apply. Candidates
> who
> > > have stronger networks within the industry they're moving into (again,
> > more
> > > commonly white men with privileged social and educational backgrounds)
> > also
> > > have clear expectations because they are 'in the know' about industry
> > > norms, while people who don't, find the lack of salary information a
> > > barrier to application. (After all, why take the time and effort to
> apply
> > > for a job when you have no idea how the likely pay compares to your
> > current
> > > employment?)
> > >
> > > I know practices vary within the movement - I believe the WMF never
> > > mentions salaries on ads, and I don't know whether the range is
> disclosed
> > > to applicants or not - some chapters I know do advertise a salary.
> > However,
> > > I'd urge all entities within the movement that hire staff to disclose
> the
> > > expected salary ranges for posts they are advertising, as part of
their
> > > commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
> > >
> > > Thanks for reading,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > (1): https://showthesalary.com/
> > > (2): e.g. at https://showthesalary.com/resources/
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

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 future 
expectations.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Adam Wight
Sent: 11 September 2020 11:56
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

> 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."  Editors are aware of this simple truth 
and any feigned outrage must be disingenuous.

It's interesting that I've voiced some extremely harsh criticism of the 
WMF, even suggesting that the editors form a union and sue for control 
of the Board, yet I've never once been moderated.  Had my job threatened 
perhaps, but never blocked.

The point here is that petty hostility only achieves the goal of 
creating an unpleasant and unwelcoming environment.  If you (speaking to 
the people here who are critical of the UCoC) want to make real change, 
please organize yourselves somewhere else, come up with a coherent 
argument, and present it here.  The constant attrition of "why can't I 
say 'fart'?" is tiresome and dilutes any conversation of substance.

Kind regards,
U:Adamw


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



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Nathan]

I'm sure it will vary considerably. Does that matter? When measuring
internal equity, do we measure based on how expensive of a  lifestyle each
employee leads?

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 7:46 AM Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Should they? Their cost of living expenses may vary considerably.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Nathan
> Sent: 11 September 2020 13:39
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on
> job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity
>
> Dan,
>
> Shouldn't two candidates for the same position for the same company get
> roughly the same salary, regardless of where they live?
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 7:00 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
> > Asking candidates for their current salary is prohibited in San Francisco
> > as of July 2018 [1] which means that, as a San Francisco based
> > organisation, the Foundation will undoubtedly not be doing this. To my
> > knowledge, this wasn't done by the Foundation before either, but we can
> > confidently state that it won't be done now.
> >
> > There are some complexities in disclosing salary ranges for the
> Foundation.
> > One practice that can be used for encouraging diversity in candidate
> > applications is to specify that a position is open to candidates with a
> > wide range of experience and in all locations in the world, in which case
> > the salary range posted will be so large that it will basically be
> > meaningless. On the other hand, another good practice for encouraging
> > diversity is to source internally for senior positions, which opens up
> more
> > junior roles that can be sourced externally, in which case a salary range
> > can be more meaningful and helpful. It's hard to figure out what the
> right
> > balance is.
> >
> > Regardless, more public transparency in salary banding would be good to
> > see.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> >
>
> https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-
> updates/pages/san-francisco-bans-salary-history-questions.aspx
> 
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 10:44, Chris Keating 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Good morning everyone!
> > >
> > > There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at
> > least
> > > salary ranges, on job ads.
> > >
> > > An increasing body of evidence(2) shows that practices like not
> > disclosing
> > > expected pay, and requiring applicants to disclose their current
> salary,
> > is
> > > harmful to equity in the workplace.
> > >
> > > Not disclosing salaries affects pay levels within the organisation -
> > > because white men are usually relatively confident in negotiating their
> > > salaries upwards, so tend to end up with a better deal.
> > >
> > > It can also affect the diversity of candidates who apply. Candidates
> who
> > > have stronger networks within the industry they're moving into (again,
> > more
> > > commonly white men with privileged social and educational backgrounds)
> > also
> > > have clear expectations because they are 'in the know' about industry
> > > norms, while people who don't, find the lack of salary information a
> > > barrier to application. (After all, why take the time and effort to
> apply
> > > for a job when you have no idea how the likely pay compares to your
> > current
> > > employment?)
> > >
> > > I know practices vary within the movement - I believe the WMF never
> > > mentions salaries on ads, and I don't know whether the range is
> disclosed
> > > to applicants or not - some chapters I know do advertise a salary.
> > However,
> > > I'd urge all entities within the movement that hire staff to disclose
> the
> > > expected salary ranges for posts they are advertising, as part of their
> > > commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
> > >
> > > Thanks for reading,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > (1): https://showthesalary.com/
> > > (2): e.g. at https://showthesalary.com/resources/
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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 and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Chris Keating]

Glad to see this is prompting some discussion!

Dan -

Asking candidates for their current salary is prohibited in San Francisco
> as of July 2018 [1] which means that, as a San Francisco based
> organisation, the Foundation will undoubtedly not be doing this.
>

Very glad to hear it!


>
> There are some complexities in disclosing salary ranges for the Foundation.
> One practice that can be used for encouraging diversity in candidate
> applications is to specify that a position is open to candidates with a
> wide range of experience and in all locations in the world, in which case
> the salary range posted will be so large that it will basically be
> meaningless.


That's a fair point. Though it would be possible for the WMF to be clearer
about this - if a post is advertised but  it could end up at several
different pay scales based on how senior a post it ends up being, that
could be noted. And the method by which salary for non-SF-based roles is
calculated could also be explained... "On our US Office scale this role
would pay $50-60k, but as candidates could be appointed anywhere in the
world we adjust salaries based on the cost of living where you are
located". I'm guessing the WMF has developed a systematic method of doing
this somehow.

Thanks,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[Quim Gil]

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:08 AM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> I would love us to be more gentle, but at the same time it is also
> important to recognize diversity in character, expression and opinion.


Well, precisely?  :)

"To recognize diversity in character, expression and opinion" is crucial.
Recognizing privilege is just as important.

There is abundant evidence about strong and disrespectful language driving
away those who actually would contribute diversity in a conversation. For
one (usually privileged) participant that goes through moderation after
ignoring warnings, how many (usually less or no privileged) disengage and
leave silently to avoid or boycott disrespectful behavior? That is where
the big loss in diversity lies.

One good reason to really care about high standards of respect and civility
is precisely to increase the diversity of our movement. Most of our "open"
discussion channels are not open at all. Full participation in these
channels is in practice quite exclusive. Those who thrive are privileged
persons who can handle an aggressive communication style or even enjoy it.
Wikimedia-l is no exception, and the UCoC thread is a typical example.

More and more contributors are taking action to change this trend, and this
is one of the best things happening right now in our movement.

-- 
Quim Gil (he/him)
Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Peter Southwood]

Should they? Their cost of living expenses may vary considerably. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Nathan
Sent: 11 September 2020 13:39
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on
job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

Dan,

Shouldn't two candidates for the same position for the same company get
roughly the same salary, regardless of where they live?

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 7:00 AM Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:

> Asking candidates for their current salary is prohibited in San Francisco
> as of July 2018 [1] which means that, as a San Francisco based
> organisation, the Foundation will undoubtedly not be doing this. To my
> knowledge, this wasn't done by the Foundation before either, but we can
> confidently state that it won't be done now.
>
> There are some complexities in disclosing salary ranges for the
Foundation.
> One practice that can be used for encouraging diversity in candidate
> applications is to specify that a position is open to candidates with a
> wide range of experience and in all locations in the world, in which case
> the salary range posted will be so large that it will basically be
> meaningless. On the other hand, another good practice for encouraging
> diversity is to source internally for senior positions, which opens up
more
> junior roles that can be sourced externally, in which case a salary range
> can be more meaningful and helpful. It's hard to figure out what the right
> balance is.
>
> Regardless, more public transparency in salary banding would be good to
> see.
>
> Dan
>
> [1]:
>
>
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-
updates/pages/san-francisco-bans-salary-history-questions.aspx
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 10:44, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > Good morning everyone!
> >
> > There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at
> least
> > salary ranges, on job ads.
> >
> > An increasing body of evidence(2) shows that practices like not
> disclosing
> > expected pay, and requiring applicants to disclose their current salary,
> is
> > harmful to equity in the workplace.
> >
> > Not disclosing salaries affects pay levels within the organisation -
> > because white men are usually relatively confident in negotiating their
> > salaries upwards, so tend to end up with a better deal.
> >
> > It can also affect the diversity of candidates who apply. Candidates who
> > have stronger networks within the industry they're moving into (again,
> more
> > commonly white men with privileged social and educational backgrounds)
> also
> > have clear expectations because they are 'in the know' about industry
> > norms, while people who don't, find the lack of salary information a
> > barrier to application. (After all, why take the time and effort to
apply
> > for a job when you have no idea how the likely pay compares to your
> current
> > employment?)
> >
> > I know practices vary within the movement - I believe the WMF never
> > mentions salaries on ads, and I don't know whether the range is
disclosed
> > to applicants or not - some chapters I know do advertise a salary.
> However,
> > I'd urge all entities within the movement that hire staff to disclose
the
> > expected salary ranges for posts they are advertising, as part of their
> > commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
> >
> > Thanks for reading,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > (1): https://showthesalary.com/
> > (2): e.g. at https://showthesalary.com/resources/
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikim

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Nathan]

Dan,

Shouldn't two candidates for the same position for the same company get
roughly the same salary, regardless of where they live?

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 7:00 AM Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:

> Asking candidates for their current salary is prohibited in San Francisco
> as of July 2018 [1] which means that, as a San Francisco based
> organisation, the Foundation will undoubtedly not be doing this. To my
> knowledge, this wasn't done by the Foundation before either, but we can
> confidently state that it won't be done now.
>
> There are some complexities in disclosing salary ranges for the Foundation.
> One practice that can be used for encouraging diversity in candidate
> applications is to specify that a position is open to candidates with a
> wide range of experience and in all locations in the world, in which case
> the salary range posted will be so large that it will basically be
> meaningless. On the other hand, another good practice for encouraging
> diversity is to source internally for senior positions, which opens up more
> junior roles that can be sourced externally, in which case a salary range
> can be more meaningful and helpful. It's hard to figure out what the right
> balance is.
>
> Regardless, more public transparency in salary banding would be good to
> see.
>
> Dan
>
> [1]:
>
> https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/san-francisco-bans-salary-history-questions.aspx
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 10:44, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > Good morning everyone!
> >
> > There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at
> least
> > salary ranges, on job ads.
> >
> > An increasing body of evidence(2) shows that practices like not
> disclosing
> > expected pay, and requiring applicants to disclose their current salary,
> is
> > harmful to equity in the workplace.
> >
> > Not disclosing salaries affects pay levels within the organisation -
> > because white men are usually relatively confident in negotiating their
> > salaries upwards, so tend to end up with a better deal.
> >
> > It can also affect the diversity of candidates who apply. Candidates who
> > have stronger networks within the industry they're moving into (again,
> more
> > commonly white men with privileged social and educational backgrounds)
> also
> > have clear expectations because they are 'in the know' about industry
> > norms, while people who don't, find the lack of salary information a
> > barrier to application. (After all, why take the time and effort to apply
> > for a job when you have no idea how the likely pay compares to your
> current
> > employment?)
> >
> > I know practices vary within the movement - I believe the WMF never
> > mentions salaries on ads, and I don't know whether the range is disclosed
> > to applicants or not - some chapters I know do advertise a salary.
> However,
> > I'd urge all entities within the movement that hire staff to disclose the
> > expected salary ranges for posts they are advertising, as part of their
> > commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
> >
> > Thanks for reading,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > (1): https://showthesalary.com/
> > (2): e.g. at https://showthesalary.com/resources/
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

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 feelings by all.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Benjamin Ikuta
Sent: 11 September 2020 13:16
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review



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,
> 
> 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 shocked some of you, and some may want to 
> defend freedom of expression and  others yet criticize actions past or 
> current by the Foundation, but still, I'd rather we'd compartmentalize and, 
> instead of bickering about something the list mods have already given what 
> seems to be a rather decent decision, talk about the Universal Code of 
> Conduct, as I still haven't wrapped my head around it.
> 
> Please, no more back and forth, no more inanity, no more four mails an hour.
> Thank you…
> 
> Roger / Alphos
> 
> 
>> Le 11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil  a écrit :
>> 
>> 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 civility against
>> the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If
>> you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta
>> page where the main discussion is happening.
>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> 
>> 
 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 open to consider the possibility that the latter might
 theoretically be the case, at least partially?
 Kind regards
 Ziko
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Quim Gil (he/him)
>> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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 and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

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
official explanation.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Asaf Bartov
Sent: 11 September 2020 11:46
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

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 broader audience.

Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
without effort.

As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
to be heard.

   A.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> 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: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> 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 you want us to leave this list just
> so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> accepted as a norm)
>
> The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances).  You who
> are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> >
> > 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 open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> >> Kind regards
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Benjamin Ikuta]

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,
> 
> 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 shocked some of you, and some may want to 
> defend freedom of expression and  others yet criticize actions past or 
> current by the Foundation, but still, I'd rather we'd compartmentalize and, 
> instead of bickering about something the list mods have already given what 
> seems to be a rather decent decision, talk about the Universal Code of 
> Conduct, as I still haven't wrapped my head around it.
> 
> Please, no more back and forth, no more inanity, no more four mails an hour.
> Thank you…
> 
> Roger / Alphos
> 
> 
>> Le 11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil  a écrit :
>> 
>> 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 civility against
>> the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If
>> you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta
>> page where the main discussion is happening.
>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> 
>> 
 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 open to consider the possibility that the latter might
 theoretically be the case, at least partially?
 Kind regards
 Ziko
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Quim Gil (he/him)
>> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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 and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Alphos OGame]

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 shocked some of you, and some may want to 
defend freedom of expression and  others yet criticize actions past or current 
by the Foundation, but still, I'd rather we'd compartmentalize and, instead of 
bickering about something the list mods have already given what seems to be a 
rather decent decision, talk about the Universal Code of Conduct, as I still 
haven't wrapped my head around it.

Please, no more back and forth, no more inanity, no more four mails an hour.
Thank you…

Roger / Alphos


> Le 11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil  a écrit :
> 
> 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 civility against
> the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If
> you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta
> page where the main discussion is happening.
> 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> 
> 
>>> 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 open to consider the possibility that the latter might
>>> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
>>> Kind regards
>>> Ziko
> 
> 
> -- 
> Quim Gil (he/him)
> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

Asking candidates for their current salary is prohibited in San Francisco
as of July 2018 [1] which means that, as a San Francisco based
organisation, the Foundation will undoubtedly not be doing this. To my
knowledge, this wasn't done by the Foundation before either, but we can
confidently state that it won't be done now.

There are some complexities in disclosing salary ranges for the Foundation.
One practice that can be used for encouraging diversity in candidate
applications is to specify that a position is open to candidates with a
wide range of experience and in all locations in the world, in which case
the salary range posted will be so large that it will basically be
meaningless. On the other hand, another good practice for encouraging
diversity is to source internally for senior positions, which opens up more
junior roles that can be sourced externally, in which case a salary range
can be more meaningful and helpful. It's hard to figure out what the right
balance is.

Regardless, more public transparency in salary banding would be good to see.

Dan

[1]:
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/san-francisco-bans-salary-history-questions.aspx

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 10:44, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Good morning everyone!
>
> There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at least
> salary ranges, on job ads.
>
> An increasing body of evidence(2) shows that practices like not disclosing
> expected pay, and requiring applicants to disclose their current salary, is
> harmful to equity in the workplace.
>
> Not disclosing salaries affects pay levels within the organisation -
> because white men are usually relatively confident in negotiating their
> salaries upwards, so tend to end up with a better deal.
>
> It can also affect the diversity of candidates who apply. Candidates who
> have stronger networks within the industry they're moving into (again, more
> commonly white men with privileged social and educational backgrounds) also
> have clear expectations because they are 'in the know' about industry
> norms, while people who don't, find the lack of salary information a
> barrier to application. (After all, why take the time and effort to apply
> for a job when you have no idea how the likely pay compares to your current
> employment?)
>
> I know practices vary within the movement - I believe the WMF never
> mentions salaries on ads, and I don't know whether the range is disclosed
> to applicants or not - some chapters I know do advertise a salary. However,
> I'd urge all entities within the movement that hire staff to disclose the
> expected salary ranges for posts they are advertising, as part of their
> commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> (1): https://showthesalary.com/
> (2): e.g. at https://showthesalary.com/resources/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Jan Ainali]

This is a very interesting topic and I am intrigued by how the Humanitarian
OpenStreetMap Team has their salary models transparent on their website:
https://www.hotosm.org/salaries
Perhaps there is something to copy from that as well?

/Jan Ainali


Den fre 11 sep. 2020 kl 11:44 skrev Chris Keating <
chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>:

> Good morning everyone!
>
> There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at least
> salary ranges, on job ads.
>
> An increasing body of evidence(2) shows that practices like not disclosing
> expected pay, and requiring applicants to disclose their current salary, is
> harmful to equity in the workplace.
>
> Not disclosing salaries affects pay levels within the organisation -
> because white men are usually relatively confident in negotiating their
> salaries upwards, so tend to end up with a better deal.
>
> It can also affect the diversity of candidates who apply. Candidates who
> have stronger networks within the industry they're moving into (again, more
> commonly white men with privileged social and educational backgrounds) also
> have clear expectations because they are 'in the know' about industry
> norms, while people who don't, find the lack of salary information a
> barrier to application. (After all, why take the time and effort to apply
> for a job when you have no idea how the likely pay compares to your current
> employment?)
>
> I know practices vary within the movement - I believe the WMF never
> mentions salaries on ads, and I don't know whether the range is disclosed
> to applicants or not - some chapters I know do advertise a salary. However,
> I'd urge all entities within the movement that hire staff to disclose the
> expected salary ranges for posts they are advertising, as part of their
> commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> (1): https://showthesalary.com/
> (2): e.g. at https://showthesalary.com/resources/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Quim Gil]

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 civility against
the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If
you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta
page where the main discussion is happening.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review


>
>
>
> 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 open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> > theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko


-- 
Quim Gil (he/him)
Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Adam Wight]

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."  Editors are aware of this simple truth 
and any feigned outrage must be disingenuous.


It's interesting that I've voiced some extremely harsh criticism of the 
WMF, even suggesting that the editors form a union and sue for control 
of the Board, yet I've never once been moderated.  Had my job threatened 
perhaps, but never blocked.


The point here is that petty hostility only achieves the goal of 
creating an unpleasant and unwelcoming environment.  If you (speaking to 
the people here who are critical of the UCoC) want to make real change, 
please organize yourselves somewhere else, come up with a coherent 
argument, and present it here.  The constant attrition of "why can't I 
say 'fart'?" is tiresome and dilutes any conversation of substance.


Kind regards,
U:Adamw


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Asaf Bartov]

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 broader audience.

Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
without effort.

As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
to be heard.

   A.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> 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: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> 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 you want us to leave this list just
> so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> accepted as a norm)
>
> The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances).  You who
> are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> >
> > 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 open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> >> Kind regards
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Chris Keating]

Good morning everyone!

There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at least
salary ranges, on job ads.

An increasing body of evidence(2) shows that practices like not disclosing
expected pay, and requiring applicants to disclose their current salary, is
harmful to equity in the workplace.

Not disclosing salaries affects pay levels within the organisation -
because white men are usually relatively confident in negotiating their
salaries upwards, so tend to end up with a better deal.

It can also affect the diversity of candidates who apply. Candidates who
have stronger networks within the industry they're moving into (again, more
commonly white men with privileged social and educational backgrounds) also
have clear expectations because they are 'in the know' about industry
norms, while people who don't, find the lack of salary information a
barrier to application. (After all, why take the time and effort to apply
for a job when you have no idea how the likely pay compares to your current
employment?)

I know practices vary within the movement - I believe the WMF never
mentions salaries on ads, and I don't know whether the range is disclosed
to applicants or not - some chapters I know do advertise a salary. However,
I'd urge all entities within the movement that hire staff to disclose the
expected salary ranges for posts they are advertising, as part of their
commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.

Thanks for reading,

Chris



(1): https://showthesalary.com/
(2): e.g. at https://showthesalary.com/resources/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

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: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

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 you want us to leave this list just 
so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was 
accepted as a norm)

The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to 
adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit 
our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances).  You who 
are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too 
hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?

Anders


Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
>
> 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 open to consider the possibility that the latter might
>> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
>>
>>
>>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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 and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Peter Southwood]

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 more, 
than a failure of civility.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Todd Allen
Sent: 11 September 2020 09:14
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

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 strongly oppose it.

Todd

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:45 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> 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 voice this
> criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with
> figurative language entirely.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > collegial.
> >
> > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> the
> > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
> > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> things
> > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> >
> > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
> in
> > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
> > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> > over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
> free
> > information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> > *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> > connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
> *I'm*
> > grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
> > arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
> in
> > what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
> bigger
> > than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
> > smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
> >
> > No, I didn't mean petit.
> >
> > Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
> > vigorously is what adults are able to do.
> >
> > It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
> > the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
> > self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
> being
> > suppressed on dubious grounds.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 code of conduct could help then take
> > action
> > > because it offers a frame.
> > >
> > > This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
> > >
> > > We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
> of
> > > conduct.
> > >
> > > So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
> > and
> > > I hope the language will remain respectful.
> > >
> > > I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
> about
> > > « wmf flatulence ».
> > >
> > >
> > >  I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
> > supposedly
> > > asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board of Wikimedia Chile / Nuevo directorio de Wikimedia Chile

[Peter Southwood]

Good luck to all of you
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rocío Consales
Sent: 10 September 2020 20:39
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] New board of Wikimedia Chile / Nuevo directorio de 
Wikimedia Chile

[*Spanish below*]

Comrades:


I hope everyone is in good health. I write to inform you of the update of
the Wikimedia Chile board. I have submitted my resignation to the
presidency, since I obtained a scholarship to study in Spain. The new
president of WMCL is Carlos Figueroa, whom the whole team has great esteem
and confidence in to continue with the multiple projects that the chapter
has ahead. Luis Cristóbal Carrasco, a very enthusiastic member, who we know
will be a great contribution to this administration, joins the board.


The new board consists of:
President: Carlos Figueroa
Vicepresident: Marco Correa
Secretary: Claudio Loader
Treasurer: Osmar Valdebenito
Board member: Dennis Tobar
Board member: Luis Cristóbal Carrasco


The team is fully aware of the lack of gender diversity in the board, but
it has been done and will continue to work with the commitment to solve
this problem in the near future. The work related to reducing the gender
gap has been transversal in all our activities and in the administrations
of our chapter, and we sincerely hope as a team that the steps that have
been taken in that direction will soon bear fruit.


It only remains for me to thank the trust placed in me by the partners and
the entire team, and wish the best of success to the new structure of the
board of directors.


Sincerely,

Rocío Consales

___


Camaradas:


Espero que todos se encuentren bien de salud. Escribo para informar la
actualización del directorio de Wikimedia Chile. He presentado mi renuncia
a la presidencia, ya que obtuve una beca para estudiar en España. El nuevo
presidente de WMCL es Carlos Figueroa, a quien todo el equipo le tiene una
gran estima y confianza para seguir adelante con los múltiples proyectos
que el capítulo tiene por delante. Ingresa al directorio Luis Cristóbal
Carrasco, socio muy entusiasta que sabemos será un gran aporte a esta
administración.


El nuevo directorio se compone por:
Presidente: Carlos Figueroa

Vicepresidente: Marco Correa

Secretario: Claudio Loader

Tesorero: Osmar Valdebenito

Director: Dennis Tobar

Director Luis Cristóbal Carrasco


El equipo está completamente consciente de la falta de diversidad de género
en el directorio, pero se ha hecho y seguirá trabajando con el compromiso
de solventar este problema en el futuro próximo. El trabajo relacionado a
disminuir la brecha de género ha sido transversal en todas nuestras
actividades y en las administraciones de nuestro capítulo, y esperamos
sinceramente como equipo que los pasos que se han dado en esa dirección
pronto rindan frutos.


Solo me queda agradecer la confianza depositada en mí por los socios y todo
el equipo, y desear el mayor de los éxitos a la nueva estructura de la
junta directiva.



Un abrazo,

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



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[Peter Southwood]

Lukas, If you could explain exactly what your objection was, it lets all of us 
understand better where the line was drawn. That allows discussion to be 
focused on reality rather than speculation, which could get us closer to an 
acceptable code of conduct, instead of fuelling paranoia.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Lukas Mezger
Sent: 10 September 2020 20:30
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

Hello,

As one of the list subscribers who contacted the list moderators about the
messages in question, please let me second the sentiment that this list
should welcome discourse that is honest and frank while remaining
constructive and civil. Being subscribed to this list can be stressful for
some of us at times, so please keep that in mind when contributing.
Thank you, and kind regards,

Lukas


--

Dr. Lukas Mezger
Vorsitzender des Präsidiums / chair of the Supervisory Board

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260 – (0151) 268 63 931
http://wikimedia.de

Bleiben Sie auf dem neuesten Stand! Aktuelle Nachrichten und spannende
Geschichten rund um Wikimedia, Wikipedia und Freies Wissen im Newsletter: Zur
Anmeldung .

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

Am Do., 10. Sept. 2020 um 18:19 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:

> Is the objection to the words he used or to the way he used them?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Asaf Bartov
> Sent: 09 September 2020 21:57
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice
>
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> List subscriber Dan Szymborski has been placed under moderation, due to
> posts with unacceptable language.
>
> I remind everyone that criticism is appropriate and welcome on this list,
> so long as it remains civil and respectful of the people involved.
>
>Asaf (volunteer capacity)
>on behalf of Wikimedia-l list moderators
> --
> Asaf Bartov 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Anders Wennersten]

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 you want us to leave this list just 
so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was 
accepted as a norm)


The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to 
adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit 
our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances).  You who 
are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too 
hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?


Anders


Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:


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 open to consider the possibility that the latter might
theoretically be the case, at least partially?
Kind regards
Ziko




a.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Wikimedia-l] New Wikimedia Chile Board

[Carlos Figueroa Rojas]

Dear all,

Due to the resignation of the chair Rocío Consales, a new Wikimedia Chile
board was appointed for the remainder of the term 2019-2021. The positions
were filled as follows:

- Carlos Figueroa, Chair;
- Marco Correa: Vicechair;
- Claudio Loader, Secretary;
- Osmar Valdebenito, Treasurer;
- Dennis Tobar, Director:
- Cristóbal Carrasco, Director.

We are very grateful for Rocío's service these years, and we wish you all
the best.

Best regards,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Benjamin Ikuta]

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 open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Todd Allen]

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 strongly oppose it.

Todd

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:45 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> 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 voice this
> criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with
> figurative language entirely.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > collegial.
> >
> > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> the
> > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
> > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> things
> > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> >
> > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
> in
> > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
> > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> > over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
> free
> > information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> > *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> > connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
> *I'm*
> > grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
> > arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
> in
> > what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
> bigger
> > than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
> > smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
> >
> > No, I didn't mean petit.
> >
> > Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
> > vigorously is what adults are able to do.
> >
> > It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
> > the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
> > self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
> being
> > suppressed on dubious grounds.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 code of conduct could help then take
> > action
> > > because it offers a frame.
> > >
> > > This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
> > >
> > > We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
> of
> > > conduct.
> > >
> > > So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
> > and
> > > I hope the language will remain respectful.
> > >
> > > I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
> about
> > > « wmf flatulence ».
> > >
> > >
> > >  I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
> > supposedly
> > > asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
> > >
> > > It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this
> > > thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
> > >
> > > Please could we all feel empowered to  apply our founding principles
> and
> > > refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Nattes à chat
> > >
> > >
> > > Envoyé de mon iPhone
> > >
> > > > Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra  a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Yair
> > > >
> > > > I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
> the
> > > > strategy program took place. Affiliates were aske

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Yaroslav Blanter]

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, from participating.
A completely different one is a proliferation of POV pushers in all
possible topics. However, UCoC will not solve these problems. It will not
solve any problems of the French Wikipedia.

The point is that big projects  had twenty years to solve behavioral
issues, and have developed an extensive system of policies and guidelines
to deal with them. In some cases, policies are missing because the
communities were not able to come up with a good solution, acceptable for
everyone, and it is very naive to think that a small dedicated group will
be able to develop something better in two months. I see that it does not
even pretend doing this, which is a good thing, but even if they were
thinking they know better than the communities such UCoC were impossible to
enforce. Another reason sometimes is that policies already exist but are
not fully enforced - and here UCoC will not help either, the projects must
look themselves and figure out why the policies are not enforced.

Where UCoC can potentially help are small projects without well-developed
conduct policies. A few year ago, a user was blocked on the Acehnese
Wikipedia for something that the admin thought is an insult to Islam (I
believe posting non-offensive images of people but I muight be wrong). On
the Chechen Wikipedia, a user was blocked for stating that Chechnya is part
of Russia. A couple of years ago, a user was blocked on the Amcharic
Wikipedia, and the admin said openly gay users are not allowed to edit
because this is contrary to Ethiopian tradition. The Croatian Wikipedia is
essentially governed by a clique blocking everybody who disagrees, and
nobody can do anything about it. These are the showcases where UCoC may be
(or even might be) instrumental, and only if one thinks very well what the
instruments could be. Not on the big projects.

Best
Yaroslav

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 8:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> 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 code of conduct could help then take action
> because it offers a frame.
>
> This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
>
> We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code of
> conduct.
>
> So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions, and
> I hope the language will remain respectful.
>
> I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke about
> « wmf flatulence ».
>
>
>  I dont want to read that type of language among people who are supposedly
> asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
>
> It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this
> thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
>
> Please could we all feel empowered to  apply our founding principles and
> refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nattes à chat
>
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> > Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra  a écrit :
> >
> > 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 were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by
> the
> > WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
> program
> > went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus. Trust
> > and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as necessary
> > to the future development of the movement. This process has been open for
> > ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process but
> > every choice has been made by community members without any duress or
> > reward as to where each step lead.
> >
> > As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in
> new
> > contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving advantages
> > to those who have been around longer but that is not something that will
> be
> > unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
> person
> > is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between
> > them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand  wrote:
> >>
> >> The UCoC is obviously a WMF-drive