On Sat, 30 Jan 2016, Trillium Corsage wrote:
30.01.2016, 14:03, "Maggie Dennis" :
The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is
not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the i
Maggie Dennis wrote:
> In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
> (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
> harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
> Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of
30.01.2016, 14:03, "Maggie Dennis" :
> The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
> pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is
> not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems
> to be to humiliate and hurt t
"On 30 January 2016 at 14:20, Pierre-Selim wrote:
> We should take such reports seriously, instead of trying to invalidate the
> result. The denial is hindering improvements.
It certainly wasn't my intention to deny that this occurs, nor it's
potentially devastating impact on victims - indeed, I
Some of the things that users might consider "revenge porn" would include
porn that is sent to them via email (either images or text - both of which
I've received), or images/comments posted to their userspace or to other
places where it was intended to come to their attention (e.g., obviously
inap
Hi Tobias,
In addition to Maggie's attempt to explain why the numbers might seem high,
the reported percentages on slide #17 are not out of the total pool of
respondents (~3800) but out of those who reported experiencing harassment
(~1200).
e.g. as there were 740 respondents reported "revenge por
Il 30/01/2016 18:12, Jane Darnell ha scritto:
I think you meant to link this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito&type=revision&diff=686068089&oldid=686006551
Nope, I exactly meant the link I posted :D
Mine wasn't a criticism of Bgwhite but I wanted to point out he dealt
wit
I think you meant to link this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito&type=revision&diff=686068089&oldid=686006551
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Vituzzu wrote:
> A similar situation happened to me:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito&diff=685988175&oldid=685926527
A similar situation happened to me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito&diff=685988175&oldid=685926527
or just a couple of days ago most of my uploads at Commons were deleted
because a long-term abuser filled them with crappy "{{Copyviol|request
file delegation abusive vandalisme co
I have been surprised again and again by a casual form of vandalism that
goes unchecked because it is possibly seen as humorous. Here is an example
of something I have corrected in passing (and can remember how to find in
order to link it here):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_D
Hi Tobias,
Like Maggie, I was not surprised that people (both men and women) were
reporting revenge porn because I know of reports in the Wikimedia
community, but like her I was surprised that this survey showed
revenge porn being reported by this many people.
But it is not surprising that the pe
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised either. Can't discuss details for obvious
reasons, but some of the stuff I saw while on the ArbCom would really make
your hair curl. Trolls can get pretty vicious.
Todd
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Tobias
wrote:
> Right. Thanks Philippe and Maggie!
>
> Tobia
Right. Thanks Philippe and Maggie!
Tobias
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/w
As an oversighter on Wikimedia Commons, I have witness what has been
described by Maggie and Philippe.
We should take such reports seriously, instead of trying to invalidate the
result. The denial is hindering improvements.
Le 30 janv. 2016 3:03 PM, "Maggie Dennis" a écrit :
> Hi, Tobias.
>
> Th
Hi, Tobias.
The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic
pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is
not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems
to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal see
Maggie gave the answer: "and cases where existing
pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and
misattributed as being them."
It isn't dependent on an actual published photo. You can take any old photo,
slap "Philippe beau fete" on it, and run with it. (You CANbut plea
On 30 January 2016 at 13:14, Tobias wrote:
> Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of
> revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit
> or sexualised photos of without one's consent".
>
>
> Wait, what? How could that possibly be...?
>
> Eit
Hi Maggie,
On 01/30/2016 02:35 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote:
> In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
> (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
> harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
> Advocacy). There have been cases wh
Hi, Tobias.
In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
(unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the
individuals h
Thank you Patrick.
The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by
how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment
respondents cite.
User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of
respondents in our community* apparently were su
Thanks Patrick, a wonderful first step.
For future updates, I hope you can find ways to add data from automated
analysis of interactions, like the League of Legends example Toby shared a
few months back.
Sam
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Patrick Earley
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> The preliminar
Patrick, I also want to thank you and the team for having done this work.
It's extremely interesting and informative, and I think it will be very
helpful moving forward.
Sarah
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> Thank you for posting this -- excellent work don
Patrick,
Thank you for posting this -- excellent work done by our team and deep
engagement with the community. I encourage everyone to review as we
continue to assess best ways to support healthy and safe Wikimedia
environment for all our contributors and readers.
Lila
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:
Hello all,
The preliminary report of the results of the 2015 Harassment survey is now
available on Commons, as linked from Meta.[1] This is the first version of
our analysis of the results, and while it is nearly completed, it will be
amended and updated within a week as we finish developing it.
24 matches
Mail list logo
