Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-25 Thread Tim Landscheidt
Leila Zia  wrote:

> […]

> On a separate note to those of you who contribute to technical spaces and
> are not happy about how some aspects have gone:

> Matthew and a few other people have been trying /really hard/ to make
> Wikimedia's technical spaces better. You know that embarking on such a path
> is very difficult: it requires spending many many hours of your time (read
> life) on it, elaborating, deliberating, documenting, discussing things with
> people from different paths of life, etc. They have been doing it for
> months now. It's my understanding that they are doing this not to exercise
> power over others but to make our technical spaces better, to make them
> more enjoyable to contribute in.

> For all of us who contribute in technical spaces, we should remember: We
> may not agree with every step they take, but we all owe it to them to help
> them on this path. What they are doing is a good thing and that's something
> that sometimes gets lost in these lengthy conversations.

This is a circular and illogical argument.  Just because
someone has good intentions or invested time and effort does
not mean that the path they chose is the right one to take.
And if someone is steering towards a cliff, encouraging peo-
ple to keep pushing the cart to honour the navigator's dedi-
cation is self-destructive.

Personally I'm much more grateful for the people who did not
spend their energy on this code of conduct to "accidentally"
exercise power over others, but made our technical spaces
better and more enjoyable by reporting bugs, debugging, an-
swering questions, writing patches, reviewing contributions
or creating or translating documentation.

Tim


___
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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-25 Thread Leila Zia
Hi MZMcBride,

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:15 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
>
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> >English Wikipedia policy is clear
> >(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry):
> >"In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or
> >given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them
> >expressing the same opinion."
> >
> >Other wikis have similar conventions and policies, and some other wikis
> >even formalize this into required edit counts.
>
> It's darkly amusing to see you citing the English Wikipedia. When I
> pointed out to you on mediawiki.org that
> ​​
> "it would never be appropriate
> for the person who began a discussion to then also close that discussion,"
> you replied that "English Wikipedia policies do not apply here."
>

​Note that when Matthew brought up the example of English Wikipedia (in
"English Wikipedia policy is clear ..."), it was in response to "This is
always the case." in the following comment:

On 02/21/2017 06:24 PM, Todd Allen wrote:

> No. The community I am referring to is all WMF project participants who
> might be interested in presenting their opinion on the subject, regardless
> of whether or not they currently participate in any given specific area.
> That is always the case.

​
​Matthew used English Wikipedia as one example to say that the statement
"This is always the case." is not correct.​ Using English Wikipedia as an
example to negate that statement is not in contradiction with what Matthew
said to you on mediawiki.org.

On a separate note to those of you who contribute to technical spaces and
are not happy about how some aspects have gone:

Matthew and a few other people have been trying /really hard/ to make
Wikimedia's technical spaces better. You know that embarking on such a path
is very difficult: it requires spending many many hours of your time (read
life) on it, elaborating, deliberating, documenting, discussing things with
people from different paths of life, etc. They have been doing it for
months now. It's my understanding that they are doing this not to exercise
power over others but to make our technical spaces better, to make them
more enjoyable to contribute in.

For all of us who contribute in technical spaces, we should remember: We
may not agree with every step they take, but we all owe it to them to help
them on this path. What they are doing is a good thing and that's something
that sometimes gets lost in these lengthy conversations.

Best,
Leila

--
​
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation


> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-25 Thread MZMcBride
Pine W wrote:
>When I last spent some time looking at the proposal, I too felt that the
>contributions indicated that the policy had far too little community
>influence. *However*, if you'll entertain a hypothetical with me for a
>moment, let's suppose that the status quo continues and there is
>effectively no conduct policy for technical spaces -- in particular,
>Phabricator and MediaWiki, unless I am missing a conduct policy that
>already applies to them outside of the ToS. If there is no policy, is that
>better than the policy that Matthew has been drafting?

The "no conduct policy for technical spaces" argument was debunked here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-November/085573.html

Pine W also wrote:
>Well, WMF will have to deal with this policy too. (:

Sort of. The proposed text currently includes "If a WMF employee or
contractor is accused of wrongdoing, or a WMF employee or contractor is
reported as being subjected to wrongdoing, the Committee will forward the
report to the employee's or contractor’s manager, and to WMF HR in
writing." It remains very unclear whether this code of conduct policy can
apply to Wikimedia Foundation employees, given comments from the Wikimedia
Foundation's Legal and Human Resources departments.

> While I have mixed feelings about TCoC and the process for its
>creation, I also don't want anarchy in Phabricator and MediaWiki, so it
>seems prudent to explore alternatives.

Anarchy? Huh?

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
>However, since the end of 2015 the drafting of the code has largely been
>in the hands of a small group of WMF staff, and they have taken it on
>themselves to change that consensus and stated that the code will come
>into effect as soon as the last section is agreed, which will be quite
>soon.
>
>Do the WMF and the wider Community wish to adhere to the initial
>consensus, and put the draft code out to the comunity for adoption?  Or
>will the WMF choose to enact it on their own authority irrespective of
>any community views on the subject?
>
>If the code is to be voted on by the Community, what would be the
>appropriate venue for the vote, and where should the vote be publicised?

It's pretty bizarre that nobody has addressed this. Many people supported
specific sections of the proposed document with an explicit understanding
that there would be a final vote on the full document later. A few members
of Wikimedia Foundation staff then tried to declare that a final vote was
not necessary, violating previous statements and agreements. These same
staff members have also been involved in closing discussions in which they
were active participants or even the initiators of the discussion.

This is all noted at
. I think these
actions will delegitimize the entire document and any processes or
procedures it attempts to implement.

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>English Wikipedia policy is clear
>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry):
>"In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or
>given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them
>expressing the same opinion."
>
>Other wikis have similar conventions and policies, and some other wikis
>even formalize this into required edit counts.

It's darkly amusing to see you citing the English Wikipedia. When I
pointed out to you on mediawiki.org that "it would never be appropriate
for the person who began a discussion to then also close that discussion,"
you replied that "English Wikipedia policies do not apply here."

MZMcBride



___
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] proposal for regular surveys of community opinion

2017-02-25 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
An interesting idea, and if it reduces the survey load on the community
that would be good.  But one should never survey for the sake of it.  Any
proposed survey question should be able to meet the test "What will you do
with the answer to this question?"  In my experience, the response to that
is often "We want to understand X,Y or Z".  That's not a good response: it
should always be about what will happen in the real world as a result of
that understanding.

"Rogol"

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Bill Takatoshi 
wrote:

> Over the past few weeks I have been discussing how to correct the lack
> of information about community opinion and the disadvantages of
> relying on opt-in (RFCs or less formal "speak up and stick your neck
> out") methods for addressing the problem with Foundation staff, other
> community members, and outside researchers experienced with surveying
> wikipedians. A number of themes are apparent, most prominently that I
> should, "collectively propose and work to develop additional systems,"
> as one Foundation staffer put it.
>
> So to get that ball rolling, I propose a monthly survey of editing
> community members as follows:
>
> (1) Anyone may suggest a topic or subject area to be included, for
> each of the top 20 largest language editions of Wikipedia by number of
> active editors, by sending email to an independent, outside firm
> experienced with surveying community members. All such emails will
> have their sender and other identifying information removed and then
> will be posted in a public location on the web for review by anyone
> interested.
>
> (2) Each month, the independent firm will pick the top five most
> popular topics to be included in each language's Wikipedia community
> survey, and will compose two to five opinion questions on each of
> those topics, with the goal of producing a neutral opinion
> questionnaire with about twenty likert and multiple choice tally
> questions. Every question will have an "other" option when
> appropriate, enabling a fill-in-the-blank opportunity when selected.
>
> (3) All questions will be clearly indicated as entirely optional. Each
> survey will conclude with demographic questions asking the
> respondents' age, sex, education, household income, and household
> composition, in compliance with the instructions at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Survey_best_practices along with
> state-level geographic location, estimated hours spent editing over
> the past month, and the date each respondent started editing.
>
> (4) When each month's survey is ready, the independent firm will use
> the Recent Changes history for one day randomly selected from the past
> two weeks to select 1,000 users with contribution histories of at
> least 100 edits and going back at least one year, and who have email
> enabled, and send a link to a Qualtrics survey questionnaire to each
> of those 20,000 users. I believe this step can be efficiently
> automated, but bot approval will be necessary at least for the final
> step of sending the survey email text and links.
>
> (5) The email will indicate that the survey will be open for two
> weeks. At the end of the two week period, the raw Qualtrics results,
> expected margins or error, and any significant cross-tabulations
> information apparent in the data will be made public at a new web page
> for each language each month, all linked from a static URL where
> highlights from the results will also be summarized in paragraph form.
>
> I would be thrilled to learn what you think of this proposal. I hope
> the Foundation will consider funding such a regular opinion survey,
> and I certainly hope they will help with implementing the technical
> aspects, but if not, I am willing to pass the hat in the form of a
> GoFundMe or similar.
>
> Finally, it seems to me that more than a few of the nagging
> controversial questions concerning the Draft Code of Conduct for
> Technical Spaces, a subject of ongoing apparent acrimony on this list
> recently, could easily benefit from such a facility, were it
> available.
>
> -Will
>
> ___
> 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,