Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-06-02 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Returning briefly to NSFW content on Wikimedia sites, there has been some
press coverage in Germany these past couple of days:

*
http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/jugendgefaehrdend-porno-links-in-wikipedia/

*
http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/die-porno-links-in-wikipedia-ein-politischer-skandal/

*
http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/porno-links-in-wikipedia-deutscher-lehrerverband-fordert-schulminister-zum-handeln-auf/

*
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Lehrerverband-erzuernt-ueber-Porno-Links-in-Wikipedia-2214124.html

*
http://www.noz.de/deutschland-welt/politik/artikel/479778/lehrerverband-kritisiert-porno-links-bei-wikipedia

*
http://www.bild.de/news/inland/pornografie/porno-alarm-bei-wikipedia-lehrer-schueler-36224468.bild.html

*
http://www.wa.de/nachrichten/nrw/lehrer-nachrichtenseite-news4teachersde-kritisiert-porno-links-internet-enzyklopaedie-wikipedia-3603101.html

*
http://derstandard.at/201726824/Deutscher-Lehrerverband-alarmiert-von-Porno-Links-in-Wikipedia

Apparently, the German Teachers' Association has called on the German
Education Minister and Wikipedia to take action.

What I found surprising here, given the history of the topic within the
Wikimedia movement, was the response from a Wikimedia Germany spokesperson
in the first article linked above:

---o0o---

Asked about this content by News4teachers.de, those in charge of Wikipedia
in Germany point to the U.S. parent company. A spokesman told our editors:
As a matter of fact, we at Wikimedia Germany have no influence on what is
to be found on Wikipedia and its sister projects (such as the free media
portal, Wikimedia Commons). All of these sites are hosted and managed by
the Wikimedia Foundation in the U.S.

---o0o---



On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Thyge ltl.pri...@gmail.com wrote:

 2014-05-29 7:46 GMT+02:00 Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com:

 
  * I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in
  protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly
  interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as
  the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain
  outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies,
  but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute
  a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed.
 
  I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've
  basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were
  directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive
  reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me
  ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are
  coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally
  upsetting?
 
  Thanks again!
  ,Wil


 Wil,
 if the discussions are outdated, so are the questions, since they for
 years already have been considered at length on-wiki with a lot of
 spill-off here.

 In order to make progress in any direction, new suggestions that can obtain
 consensus are needed. As far as I can see, you raise old questions without
 apparently showing interest in the comprehensive past treatment and without
 presenting any new point of view or a perspective that points to a
 solution. In addition, as I and others have remarked earlier, the
 questions basically belong to meta and not on this list.

 This is what I feel you 'have done wrong'  and - since that takes away from
 my available time and from my reading about other topics here - that
 is what upsets me.
 Regards,
 Thyge
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-06-02 Thread Michael Jahn
Being the spokesperson, the statement is by and large correct, although not
given in this context but as a reply to a content-related question from one
day earlier. It was used in the linked news source articel, to which the
teacher's association reacted within an hour. As I've written elsewhere,
this was clearly spun. Unusually aggressive move.  The association demands
that Wikipedia and all free-of-charge eduational services be stopped,
being unfit for school children. It also demands that printed encycopledias
be reintroduced to schools and school libraries be better funded,
...printed material, that is.

Best
Michael


2014-06-02 23:06 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com:

 Returning briefly to NSFW content on Wikimedia sites, there has been some
 press coverage in Germany these past couple of days:

 *

 http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/jugendgefaehrdend-porno-links-in-wikipedia/

 *

 http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/die-porno-links-in-wikipedia-ein-politischer-skandal/

 *

 http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/porno-links-in-wikipedia-deutscher-lehrerverband-fordert-schulminister-zum-handeln-auf/

 *

 http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Lehrerverband-erzuernt-ueber-Porno-Links-in-Wikipedia-2214124.html

 *

 http://www.noz.de/deutschland-welt/politik/artikel/479778/lehrerverband-kritisiert-porno-links-bei-wikipedia

 *

 http://www.bild.de/news/inland/pornografie/porno-alarm-bei-wikipedia-lehrer-schueler-36224468.bild.html

 *

 http://www.wa.de/nachrichten/nrw/lehrer-nachrichtenseite-news4teachersde-kritisiert-porno-links-internet-enzyklopaedie-wikipedia-3603101.html

 *

 http://derstandard.at/201726824/Deutscher-Lehrerverband-alarmiert-von-Porno-Links-in-Wikipedia

 Apparently, the German Teachers' Association has called on the German
 Education Minister and Wikipedia to take action.

 What I found surprising here, given the history of the topic within the
 Wikimedia movement, was the response from a Wikimedia Germany spokesperson
 in the first article linked above:

 ---o0o---

 Asked about this content by News4teachers.de, those in charge of Wikipedia
 in Germany point to the U.S. parent company. A spokesman told our editors:
 As a matter of fact, we at Wikimedia Germany have no influence on what is
 to be found on Wikipedia and its sister projects (such as the free media
 portal, Wikimedia Commons). All of these sites are hosted and managed by
 the Wikimedia Foundation in the U.S.

 ---o0o---



 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Thyge ltl.pri...@gmail.com wrote:

  2014-05-29 7:46 GMT+02:00 Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com:
 
  
   * I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in
   protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly
   interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as
   the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain
   outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies,
   but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute
   a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed.
  
   I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've
   basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were
   directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive
   reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me
   ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are
   coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally
   upsetting?
  
   Thanks again!
   ,Wil
 
 
  Wil,
  if the discussions are outdated, so are the questions, since they for
  years already have been considered at length on-wiki with a lot of
  spill-off here.
 
  In order to make progress in any direction, new suggestions that can
 obtain
  consensus are needed. As far as I can see, you raise old questions
 without
  apparently showing interest in the comprehensive past treatment and
 without
  presenting any new point of view or a perspective that points to a
  solution. In addition, as I and others have remarked earlier, the
  questions basically belong to meta and not on this list.
 
  This is what I feel you 'have done wrong'  and - since that takes away
 from
  my available time and from my reading about other topics here - that
  is what upsets me.
  Regards,
  Thyge
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy (also relevant to A personal note)

2014-05-29 Thread Mike Godwin
Hi, Wil (and greetings to all my Wikimedian friends here!).

I've been catching up on the Wikimedia-L threads, and of course I've
come across your many postings and your engagement, sometimes tense,
with other posters here. I have some sympathy for your reactions and
questions: I've had some similar experiences myself, dating in
particular from the first year I served on WMF's staff as general
counsel. My own experience was colored by the fact that I knew my
intentions were good, I was reasonably certain I was a smart, even
sociable guy, and so why was it that some significant portion of what
I posted generated friction on what was supposed to be an inclusive,
Assume-Good-Faith mailing list?

I think I realized reasonably quickly that, precisely because I
assumed my own good faith, I wasn't always alert to my cultural
missteps, even though I knew at an intellectual level that this
mailing list, unlike some others, is a community. For a community,
when a new individual appears out of nowhere and begins to assert
himself or herself, and launches into extended criticisms of so many
things he (or she) encounters, the natural, human reaction is not to
automatically embrace the newcomer for his or her contributions to
diversity and insight, but instead to wonder, Hey, why hasn't he made
the effort to learn about our history and traditions and norms and
expectations?  *This phenomenon is entirely human and normal*, but it
still sometimes requires a bit of a bumpy transition, even if you know
(intellectually, at least) to expect it.

So, what I'm suggesting is, when you respond by trying to call
attention to the friction your (comparatively) abrupt dive into this
community has generated for you, what you may be calling attention to
is not something pathological about a mailing list but instead just a
part of the human condition. If you're patient, you can take a breath
or two, maybe even a short break, and come back to the list and give
as much attention to the issues and problems for the Wikimedia
movement as you like, and over time get better reactions/reception.

My own experience was that, over time, most Wikimedians had a chance
to observe my commitment as a Wikimedian, and in my role as WMF's
lawyer, to protect and advance the projects with the same fierceness
with which I sometimes, particularly early on, expressed my opinions
on the mailing lists and on the wikis. No doubt the potential is there
for you to have the same experience.

There is one important, though, between your experience and mine, and
if I were in your position I would give it some thought. Specifically,
your partner is only ever going to have one first month, and only one
first year, as the new executive director of WMF. If I were in your
position, I would give her as much breathing space and community
mindshare as I could to create her own first impressions, to find her
own themes, and to set the tone for her long-term role as executive
director. I might even take a month off with regard to participating
in public discussions -- *even though I wouldn't have to, and even
though some of the reactions to what I'd written seem unfair to me* --
just to let my partner establish her own role without any distractions
I might cause. Lila's job is tough and challenging, and she will need
all the support she can get. You may find that one way you can support
her in the very near term is to step away from tense exchanges (or
maybe all public exchanges on the lists) for a while -- even though
you may feel, with some sense of righteousness, that you shouldn't
have to do this.

I agree that in an ideal world you shouldn't have to. But in the human
world we live in, if I were in your position, I'd give this approach a
month or so, just as an exercise, and as a way of showing support for
my partner's taking the reins of an unusually difficult, but also
culturally unique enterprise.

You haven't solicited my advice on any of this, of course. But I hope
you appreciate that you're hearing it from someone who himself has
been outspoken on the lists, who is sometimes critical of community
responses and norms, who has been publicly criticized from time to
time,  but who also has found that it's really helpful, especially in
the earliest days of engagement with a new community, to listen as
much as talk. I think of myself as a Wikimedian, and my ongoing
engagement with the movement and the community is one of general
respect and regard, even when I disagree with their consensus, as I
frequently do.

I hope this note is taken in the spirit in which it is written.

Thanks for your attention.


--Mike Godwin
Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project, Internews
General Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation, 2007-2010

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-29 Thread Thyge
2014-05-29 7:46 GMT+02:00 Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com:


 * I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in
 protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly
 interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as
 the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain
 outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies,
 but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute
 a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed.

 I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've
 basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were
 directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive
 reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me
 ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are
 coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally
 upsetting?

 Thanks again!
 ,Wil


Wil,
if the discussions are outdated, so are the questions, since they for
years already have been considered at length on-wiki with a lot of
spill-off here.

In order to make progress in any direction, new suggestions that can obtain
consensus are needed. As far as I can see, you raise old questions without
apparently showing interest in the comprehensive past treatment and without
presenting any new point of view or a perspective that points to a
solution. In addition, as I and others have remarked earlier, the
questions basically belong to meta and not on this list.

This is what I feel you 'have done wrong'  and - since that takes away from
my available time and from my reading about other topics here - that
is what upsets me.
Regards,
Thyge
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy (also relevant to A personal note)

2014-05-29 Thread Keegan Peterzell
Apologies for top posting, I'm on my phone...

Mike, this was one of the best emails to this list I've read in a long
time.  As someone who has squabbled with you on mailing lists, it's even
better to me.

Take care,  sir.

~ Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
On May 29, 2014 5:53 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi, Wil (and greetings to all my Wikimedian friends here!).

 I've been catching up on the Wikimedia-L threads, and of course I've
 come across your many postings and your engagement, sometimes tense,
 with other posters here. I have some sympathy for your reactions and
 questions: I've had some similar experiences myself, dating in
 particular from the first year I served on WMF's staff as general
 counsel. My own experience was colored by the fact that I knew my
 intentions were good, I was reasonably certain I was a smart, even
 sociable guy, and so why was it that some significant portion of what
 I posted generated friction on what was supposed to be an inclusive,
 Assume-Good-Faith mailing list?

 I think I realized reasonably quickly that, precisely because I
 assumed my own good faith, I wasn't always alert to my cultural
 missteps, even though I knew at an intellectual level that this
 mailing list, unlike some others, is a community. For a community,
 when a new individual appears out of nowhere and begins to assert
 himself or herself, and launches into extended criticisms of so many
 things he (or she) encounters, the natural, human reaction is not to
 automatically embrace the newcomer for his or her contributions to
 diversity and insight, but instead to wonder, Hey, why hasn't he made
 the effort to learn about our history and traditions and norms and
 expectations?  *This phenomenon is entirely human and normal*, but it
 still sometimes requires a bit of a bumpy transition, even if you know
 (intellectually, at least) to expect it.

 So, what I'm suggesting is, when you respond by trying to call
 attention to the friction your (comparatively) abrupt dive into this
 community has generated for you, what you may be calling attention to
 is not something pathological about a mailing list but instead just a
 part of the human condition. If you're patient, you can take a breath
 or two, maybe even a short break, and come back to the list and give
 as much attention to the issues and problems for the Wikimedia
 movement as you like, and over time get better reactions/reception.

 My own experience was that, over time, most Wikimedians had a chance
 to observe my commitment as a Wikimedian, and in my role as WMF's
 lawyer, to protect and advance the projects with the same fierceness
 with which I sometimes, particularly early on, expressed my opinions
 on the mailing lists and on the wikis. No doubt the potential is there
 for you to have the same experience.

 There is one important, though, between your experience and mine, and
 if I were in your position I would give it some thought. Specifically,
 your partner is only ever going to have one first month, and only one
 first year, as the new executive director of WMF. If I were in your
 position, I would give her as much breathing space and community
 mindshare as I could to create her own first impressions, to find her
 own themes, and to set the tone for her long-term role as executive
 director. I might even take a month off with regard to participating
 in public discussions -- *even though I wouldn't have to, and even
 though some of the reactions to what I'd written seem unfair to me* --
 just to let my partner establish her own role without any distractions
 I might cause. Lila's job is tough and challenging, and she will need
 all the support she can get. You may find that one way you can support
 her in the very near term is to step away from tense exchanges (or
 maybe all public exchanges on the lists) for a while -- even though
 you may feel, with some sense of righteousness, that you shouldn't
 have to do this.

 I agree that in an ideal world you shouldn't have to. But in the human
 world we live in, if I were in your position, I'd give this approach a
 month or so, just as an exercise, and as a way of showing support for
 my partner's taking the reins of an unusually difficult, but also
 culturally unique enterprise.

 You haven't solicited my advice on any of this, of course. But I hope
 you appreciate that you're hearing it from someone who himself has
 been outspoken on the lists, who is sometimes critical of community
 responses and norms, who has been publicly criticized from time to
 time,  but who also has found that it's really helpful, especially in
 the earliest days of engagement with a new community, to listen as
 much as talk. I think of myself as a Wikimedian, and my ongoing
 engagement with the movement and the community is one of general
 respect and regard, even when I disagree with their consensus, as I
 frequently do.

 I hope this note is taken in the spirit in which it is 

[Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Wil Sinclair
Martijn asked me which things I thought that some people on this list
don't want anyone to discuss, so here are the two examples that I'm
most interested in:

Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to
understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a
specific thread for that.

Harassment- I'd like to hear about existing policies around harassment
and potential changes to such policies. In particular, I'm interested
in how the community might tackle this problem to make the site a more
comfortable place for the oft-mentioned female constituent that has
long been in decline.

Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to
discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the
thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary
about of time that is more than the few months that others have
mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this
discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active
contributor.

Now, I'll just sit back and hear all sides of the story.

,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
 content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
 children.



Wil and all,

Note that all the links I am posting below are NSFW.


1.

The other day I found that if a Portuguese or Russian child searches in
Commons for the word Mom in their language, on the first page of search
results they will find this NSFW image:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs_-_29.jpg

In the Portuguese case, it's actually the top result.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchsearch=mam%C3%A3fulltext=Search

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=defaultsearch=%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0fulltext=Search

There are many other images by the same artist in Commons that parents
might find inappropriate:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs


2.

A while ago, the top result for the French word for homework was an old
bw video showing sex between an actress dressed as a nun and a dog. That
particular video was eventually deleted, after enjoying a half-year stint
as one of the most-viewed files on Commons, with 20,000 to 30,000 views per
month:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv
http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/201203/File:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv

However, all the other videos from the same series are still on Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_from_Polissons_et_galipettes

Most of them show various forms of unsimulated intercourse etc.


3.

Commons contains dozens of masturbation videos uploaded by volunteers,
housed in

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_of_masturbation

Check the various subcategories like

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:GIF_videos_of_male_masturbation
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ogv_videos_of_male_masturbation

and so forth.


There is much more of that ilk, but it's a start.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Thomas Morton

 Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
 changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
 content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
 content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
 children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to
 understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a
 specific thread for that.


You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child
protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't
think that in any way works.

Our child protection policies are about protecting children when they
interact online. This is a perennial problem for any internet site, as I am
sure you know. We do have some policies that help a lot (for example,
admins always err on the side of caution and delete personal details that
underage editors post). We have avenues to report potential issues such as
grooming.

Could more be done? Yes, I've thought so; for example publicising the
problem more.

But is WP worse that other communities (note; not site) of similar size?
Probably not. At least not in my experience (which, of course, is pretty
extensive given my former job).

Child protection from porn, etc.? I think it's well established that kids
can come across porn anywhere (apparently, Facebook, if my cousins'
activity on there are anything to go by :S). And frankly, it's never struck
me as an issue under the umbrella of xhild protection.

How far does policing it become our job and not that of a parent? It's a
difficult decision... especially when browser-based content filters are
prevelant and easy to set up.

I've always said; we should educate our users about how to install and use
content filters, as this will benefit them outside WP too!

So then, on the flip side of your comment here you have the global issue of
objectionable images.

This is a much broader issue that the narrow one you're focusing on here.
For example, one of the main (and by main I mean constant and persistent,
beyond any complaints of porn!) complaints we see relate to images of the
prophet mohammed.

How do you, then, feel about Commons hosting images like that?

One of the tenets of the projects are that they are not censored, which I
think is a good thing. However, we've not yet struck a balance between
displaying everything and filtering things an individual doesn't want to
see.

I like the Mohammed example because it emphasises the problem where those
of us who are not Muslim find a subset of images perfectly okay, but a
Muslim might not.




 Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to
 discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the
 thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary
 about of time that is more than the few months that others have
 mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this
 discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active
 contributor.


I'm not sure what purpose it serves to bring up controversial topics, in
this forum, with an express note that you have nothing new to bring? ;)

Not to be too critical; but do you imagine that these issues aren't being
discussed on the various projects - hopefully with incremental improvement
each time. Or that individuals here are not aware of them?

More than anything though, I'm sure you're an experienced internet chap -
what did you expect to recieve in stirring up two relatively ingrained
sides? It wasn't very deft, I have to observe :)

One thing it might be important to communicate is that whilst this list is
useful for global discussion, it's not a venue that any agreement or
consensus is reached. So these discussions are really best conducted
on-wiki. I'm not sure if you've actually attempted to open such topics on
any of the projects, but the discussion you appear to be looking for can
really only happen there (rather than here, or IRC, for example).

Regards,
Tom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread C. Scott Ananian
You might be interested in look at projects like
http://schools-wikipedia.org/ and other subset wikis.  When I worked
at One Laptop per Child we distributed a offline Wikipedia slice along
with the XO-1 laptops to many schools and children.  We were in fact
careful to curate our offline article/image slice to avoid
gratuitously inappropriate content.  We felt this to be an appropriate
thing for OLPC to do, for its audience, *not* something we expected
upstream Wikipedia to do.  There are many differences between a
Children's Encyclopedia and Britannica!  OLPC did not censor links
in any way, so a laptop connected to the internet could see and follow
links to any article/image on Wikipedia (not just articles/images in
our curated offline subset).  Often schools deployed their own
content-filtering firewalls on their network connections.  We felt
this was a matter best implemented and managed by the school, with
their own local community standards.

Erik and I were spitballing wiki ideas last week, and one of the
things we discussed was ways to make it easier for third parties to
curate wikipedia subsets, as OLPC and the schools project did.  It is
certainly already possible, but it could be made easier.   If you are
interested in making a child friendly wikipedia, that is certainly
one way to go at it, and the ground is well trod.
  --scott

-- 
(http://cscott.net)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Craig Franklin
On 29 May 2014 07:13, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:

 
  Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
  changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
  content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
  content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
  children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to
  understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a
  specific thread for that.
 

 You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child
 protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't
 think that in any way works.


Indeed, and the unexpected search results on Commons matter has been
discussed at length here and on the projects, and at length, and recently.
 I don't think there's any reluctance to discuss this, there is a general
consensus that there's a problem, but different folks offer different
solutions.  On the other hand, coming out with ways to protect minors from
predators on our projects, without throwing out the bathwater as well,
would probably be an interesting discussion that I don't recall being
raised here recently.

Cheers,
Craig
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Wil Sinclair
Sorry, the n00b has to step in with a couple of clarifications. :) I
was asking about 2 separate issues, so no conflation there.

Also I asked very carefully for *all* sides of the issues: Now, I'll
just sit back and hear all sides of the story.

All right, back on topic! :)

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:

 Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
 changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
 content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
 content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
 children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to
 understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a
 specific thread for that.


 You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child
 protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't
 think that in any way works.

 Our child protection policies are about protecting children when they
 interact online. This is a perennial problem for any internet site, as I am
 sure you know. We do have some policies that help a lot (for example,
 admins always err on the side of caution and delete personal details that
 underage editors post). We have avenues to report potential issues such as
 grooming.

 Could more be done? Yes, I've thought so; for example publicising the
 problem more.

 But is WP worse that other communities (note; not site) of similar size?
 Probably not. At least not in my experience (which, of course, is pretty
 extensive given my former job).

 Child protection from porn, etc.? I think it's well established that kids
 can come across porn anywhere (apparently, Facebook, if my cousins'
 activity on there are anything to go by :S). And frankly, it's never struck
 me as an issue under the umbrella of xhild protection.

 How far does policing it become our job and not that of a parent? It's a
 difficult decision... especially when browser-based content filters are
 prevelant and easy to set up.

 I've always said; we should educate our users about how to install and use
 content filters, as this will benefit them outside WP too!

 So then, on the flip side of your comment here you have the global issue of
 objectionable images.

 This is a much broader issue that the narrow one you're focusing on here.
 For example, one of the main (and by main I mean constant and persistent,
 beyond any complaints of porn!) complaints we see relate to images of the
 prophet mohammed.

 How do you, then, feel about Commons hosting images like that?

 One of the tenets of the projects are that they are not censored, which I
 think is a good thing. However, we've not yet struck a balance between
 displaying everything and filtering things an individual doesn't want to
 see.

 I like the Mohammed example because it emphasises the problem where those
 of us who are not Muslim find a subset of images perfectly okay, but a
 Muslim might not.




 Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to
 discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the
 thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary
 about of time that is more than the few months that others have
 mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this
 discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active
 contributor.


 I'm not sure what purpose it serves to bring up controversial topics, in
 this forum, with an express note that you have nothing new to bring? ;)

 Not to be too critical; but do you imagine that these issues aren't being
 discussed on the various projects - hopefully with incremental improvement
 each time. Or that individuals here are not aware of them?

 More than anything though, I'm sure you're an experienced internet chap -
 what did you expect to recieve in stirring up two relatively ingrained
 sides? It wasn't very deft, I have to observe :)

 One thing it might be important to communicate is that whilst this list is
 useful for global discussion, it's not a venue that any agreement or
 consensus is reached. So these discussions are really best conducted
 on-wiki. I'm not sure if you've actually attempted to open such topics on
 any of the projects, but the discussion you appear to be looking for can
 really only happen there (rather than here, or IRC, for example).

 Regards,
 Tom
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Thyge
Please raise and discuss questions about policy on meta. This is not the
place.

Regards,
Thyge


2014-05-28 23:54 GMT+02:00 Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com:

 Sorry, the n00b has to step in with a couple of clarifications. :) I
 was asking about 2 separate issues, so no conflation there.

 Also I asked very carefully for *all* sides of the issues: Now, I'll
 just sit back and hear all sides of the story.

 All right, back on topic! :)

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Thomas Morton
 morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
 
  Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
  changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
  content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
  content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
  children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to
  understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a
  specific thread for that.
 
 
  You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child
  protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't
  think that in any way works.
 
  Our child protection policies are about protecting children when they
  interact online. This is a perennial problem for any internet site, as I
 am
  sure you know. We do have some policies that help a lot (for example,
  admins always err on the side of caution and delete personal details that
  underage editors post). We have avenues to report potential issues such
 as
  grooming.
 
  Could more be done? Yes, I've thought so; for example publicising the
  problem more.
 
  But is WP worse that other communities (note; not site) of similar size?
  Probably not. At least not in my experience (which, of course, is pretty
  extensive given my former job).
 
  Child protection from porn, etc.? I think it's well established that kids
  can come across porn anywhere (apparently, Facebook, if my cousins'
  activity on there are anything to go by :S). And frankly, it's never
 struck
  me as an issue under the umbrella of xhild protection.
 
  How far does policing it become our job and not that of a parent? It's a
  difficult decision... especially when browser-based content filters are
  prevelant and easy to set up.
 
  I've always said; we should educate our users about how to install and
 use
  content filters, as this will benefit them outside WP too!
 
  So then, on the flip side of your comment here you have the global issue
 of
  objectionable images.
 
  This is a much broader issue that the narrow one you're focusing on here.
  For example, one of the main (and by main I mean constant and persistent,
  beyond any complaints of porn!) complaints we see relate to images of the
  prophet mohammed.
 
  How do you, then, feel about Commons hosting images like that?
 
  One of the tenets of the projects are that they are not censored, which I
  think is a good thing. However, we've not yet struck a balance between
  displaying everything and filtering things an individual doesn't want to
  see.
 
  I like the Mohammed example because it emphasises the problem where those
  of us who are not Muslim find a subset of images perfectly okay, but a
  Muslim might not.
 
 
 
 
  Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to
  discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the
  thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary
  about of time that is more than the few months that others have
  mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this
  discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active
  contributor.
 
 
  I'm not sure what purpose it serves to bring up controversial topics, in
  this forum, with an express note that you have nothing new to bring? ;)
 
  Not to be too critical; but do you imagine that these issues aren't being
  discussed on the various projects - hopefully with incremental
 improvement
  each time. Or that individuals here are not aware of them?
 
  More than anything though, I'm sure you're an experienced internet chap -
  what did you expect to recieve in stirring up two relatively ingrained
  sides? It wasn't very deft, I have to observe :)
 
  One thing it might be important to communicate is that whilst this list
 is
  useful for global discussion, it's not a venue that any agreement or
  consensus is reached. So these discussions are really best conducted
  on-wiki. I'm not sure if you've actually attempted to open such topics on
  any of the projects, but the discussion you appear to be looking for can
  really only happen there (rather than here, or IRC, for example).
 
  Regards,
  Tom
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Martijn asked me which things I thought that some people on this list
 don't want anyone to discuss, so here are the two examples that I'm
 most interested in:

 Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
 changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
 content on Commons.


There is content on Wikipedia and on Commons, and probably on other
projects as well, that most probably doesn't find suitable for children.
What makes the matter worse is that some searches that one doesn't expect
to bring up sexually explicit content do in fact bring it up, i.e. the
famous toothbrush image. There are a couple of separate questions.

* Is the presence of sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why?
* Is the abundance of sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why?
* Is the unexpectedly turning up of the sexually explicit material on
commons a problem? Why?

Most agree that the presence of sexually explicit material on commons in
itself is not a problem in itself, and if it is, hosting some educational
material on sexually explicit subjects is more important than shielding
children from accessing the material.

The abundance of sexually explicit material on commons is odd, and probably
worthless. We frankly don't need any more low quality pictures and videos
of penises, masturbation, and other sexual acts that we already have lots
of. Does it really hurt us to have so much of it though? As long as it
doesn't get in the way, I'd say no. I'm not a commons person, and I know
that loads of low quality redundant sexually explicit images have already
been deleted - because it does get in the way. Should more be deleted?
Likely. Should all of it be deleted? No. So what should we do? On each
upload ask if it is a low quality sexually explicit image that doesn't
really add anything to the content that's already there? That makes for an
odd upload form. Ask those uploading not to upload more? I do believe we're
already doing that, to little effect. (correct me if I'm wrong, if we're
not, we probably should) But again, it's not it's presence that's a
problem, it's its in-the-wayness.

It has been argued, and I agree with that, that there are two categories of
people finding sexually explicit material in commons. Those explicitly
trying to find it, and those that come across it by accident. This goes for
all age groups. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that those looking
for it will find it no matter what, and that shouldn't be the focus of
improvement. What should be a focus, is improving the search functionality
so that the accidental doesn't happen, or at least doesn't happen so
ridiculously often as it does now: that is what I mean with it being in the
way, as demonstrated by the famous toothbrush search result. Categorization
and tagging could play a large role in this, as well as (recently
implemented) improvements in the search back-end. It's something that has
recently been brought up on this list. I'm horrible with the archives, but
I'm sure someone else will be able to point to the relevant discussion, and
what, if anything, has been undertaken on commons to act on this, or what
blockers we still have.

Now I've focused only on sexually explicit content, because that's whats
mostly what bothers people. Obviously, there is lots of other material I
wouldn't like to expose children to. There has been a recent discussion
about (valuable, suitable, and greatly disturbing) video material of WWII
concentration camps being on the front page of commons. There is also a lot
of images of medical issues that aren't the nicest to look at to put it
mildly, and there is a lot of material on the atrocities of war as well.
The first and third arguments go for this as well.

These problems are discussed frequently and have been quite recently. We
haven't found and implemented a solution though. What I can say is that the
'objectional images on commons' subject is a frequent subject for this
mailinglist. It's not that we don't want anyone to discuss it, but more
that we discuss it all the time, would love to fix it, and haven't been
able yet. Which makes many a little annoyed with someone from the outside
coming in with an 'hey, hey, what about all the dick pics on commons? Did
you know about those?'. We know, we're all annoyed with it, not only
because it makes us a just target of ridicule, but more importantly because
we've went over it again and again, quite often and quite recently, and we
haven't got an answer yet. The community has discussed the fairly obvious
option - an image filter - at great length, and didn't find that an
acceptable solution.



 I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
 content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
 children.


lots and lots and lots. It's not hard to find. I've already touched on some
subjects above, it should be easy to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
On May 29, 2014 5:33 AM, Thyge ltl.pri...@gmail.com wrote:

 Please raise and discuss questions about policy on meta. This is not the
 place.

 Regards,
 Thyge


Wil, I suggest that you do go to http://meta.wikimedia.org and find pages
about these issues. *Read the archives of the talk pages*. And start new
discussions on those talk pages. Assume the 'meta' project has a discussion
page for every issue you can think of. If you cant find something on meta,
ask someone who is active on meta (check recent changes)

Also read the archives of wikimedia-l for at least 2013 and 2014, to get a
feel for this list, and to be aware of where we are 'at' on issues which
are discussed every year. Then you can start new threads which pick up from
where we left of last time.

Keep in mind wikimedia-l is mandatory reading for a lot of very busy
volunteers and NGO staff at all levels and who have varying levels of
English proficiency. wikimedia-l doubles as an business forum for our many
NGOs.

Every email to this list has an opportunity cost. It is peoples time being
consumed.

--
John Vandenberg
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Wil Sinclair
Stepping in to add another aspect to both questions, as I think it
might focus the discussion.

Child Protection: Are children encouraged to use commons through any
programs or outreach efforts of any kind? If so, is it morally and/or
ethically justifiable to do so without protecting children in every
way possible? Can that be done without removing graphic pics from
commons?

Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
to hear about this from a female perspective.

Thanks.
,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Martijn asked me which things I thought that some people on this list
 don't want anyone to discuss, so here are the two examples that I'm
 most interested in:

 Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
 changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
 content on Commons.


 There is content on Wikipedia and on Commons, and probably on other
 projects as well, that most probably doesn't find suitable for children.
 What makes the matter worse is that some searches that one doesn't expect
 to bring up sexually explicit content do in fact bring it up, i.e. the
 famous toothbrush image. There are a couple of separate questions.

 * Is the presence of sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why?
 * Is the abundance of sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why?
 * Is the unexpectedly turning up of the sexually explicit material on
 commons a problem? Why?

 Most agree that the presence of sexually explicit material on commons in
 itself is not a problem in itself, and if it is, hosting some educational
 material on sexually explicit subjects is more important than shielding
 children from accessing the material.

 The abundance of sexually explicit material on commons is odd, and probably
 worthless. We frankly don't need any more low quality pictures and videos
 of penises, masturbation, and other sexual acts that we already have lots
 of. Does it really hurt us to have so much of it though? As long as it
 doesn't get in the way, I'd say no. I'm not a commons person, and I know
 that loads of low quality redundant sexually explicit images have already
 been deleted - because it does get in the way. Should more be deleted?
 Likely. Should all of it be deleted? No. So what should we do? On each
 upload ask if it is a low quality sexually explicit image that doesn't
 really add anything to the content that's already there? That makes for an
 odd upload form. Ask those uploading not to upload more? I do believe we're
 already doing that, to little effect. (correct me if I'm wrong, if we're
 not, we probably should) But again, it's not it's presence that's a
 problem, it's its in-the-wayness.

 It has been argued, and I agree with that, that there are two categories of
 people finding sexually explicit material in commons. Those explicitly
 trying to find it, and those that come across it by accident. This goes for
 all age groups. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that those looking
 for it will find it no matter what, and that shouldn't be the focus of
 improvement. What should be a focus, is improving the search functionality
 so that the accidental doesn't happen, or at least doesn't happen so
 ridiculously often as it does now: that is what I mean with it being in the
 way, as demonstrated by the famous toothbrush search result. Categorization
 and tagging could play a large role in this, as well as (recently
 implemented) improvements in the search back-end. It's something that has
 recently been brought up on this list. I'm horrible with the archives, but
 I'm sure someone else will be able to point to the relevant discussion, and
 what, if anything, has been undertaken on commons to act on this, or what
 blockers we still have.

 Now I've focused only on sexually explicit content, because that's whats
 mostly what bothers people. Obviously, there is lots of other material I
 wouldn't like to expose children to. There has been a recent discussion
 about (valuable, suitable, and greatly disturbing) video material of WWII
 concentration camps being on the front page of commons. There is also a lot
 of images of medical issues that aren't the nicest to look at to put it
 mildly, and there is a lot of material on the atrocities of war as well.
 The first and third arguments go for this as well.

 These problems are 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Molly White
 Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
 all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
 had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
 and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
 women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
 other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
 and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
 perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
 to hear about this from a female perspective.

A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where
people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that
wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an
inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at all.
But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have been
passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place for
myself and others to post.

You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention.
Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the
regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been motivating
and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being
scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also
shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree,
sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.

You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a group of
people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an
extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard admin
action but as some sort of clean-up after someone whom they feel I am
desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a
dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time until
now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people who
created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages mentioning
me at EncyclopediaDramatica.

So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more
in-depth female perspective here and now.

Yours,
Molly (GorillaWarfare)


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
Wil,

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 Stepping in to add another aspect to both questions, as I think it
 might focus the discussion.

 Child Protection: Are children encouraged to use commons through any
 programs or outreach efforts of any kind?

Who are you addressing that question to?

Do you want every NGO on this list to give you a complete list of any
program that they are running which may be of concern to you?

Do you want a WMF staff member to do an audit of all Wikimedia related
programs across the world, many of which are not funded by WMF?

Who is paying to provide answers for your curiosity?

Ok, those questions are a bit rough ... but ...

If you are not expecting to be treated as anyone but your own self,
you'll need to start doing you own research:

https://www.google.co.id/search?q=Wikimedia+school+programs+-site:en.wikipedia.org
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/school
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/school

Create a list of potential problematic programs, then report them here
for serious focused discussion.

 If so, is it morally and/or
 ethically justifiable to do so without protecting children in every
 way possible?

Why ask this question when you dont have answers to the previous question.
See next section for more on this question.

 Can that be done without removing graphic pics from
 commons?

If you have read the following, then you know the answer to that.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming

In which case, in my mind at least, the question is why havent we
implemented some of the simple improvements needed to reduce exposure
to the most controversial content.
This is a complex issue, and hasnt been solved in over ten years, so
dont expect that a few quick short emails with interesting questions
is going to crack this nut.  It requires hard work.

Please ask your questions, and add your insights, on that meta page,
or come to the 'user talk' pages of people who have been active in
that meta discussion.  Get to know the main players - you'll be
talking with them regularly for at least year about this issue, I
hope, if you want to see any improvements.

 Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
 all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
 had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
 and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
 women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
 other organizations?

Why ask; you know the answer to this.

 If we're not doing everything to protect women
 and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
 perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
 to hear about this from a female perspective.

Think of the women?

How do we do _everything_ to protect them?  That is a lot of stuff to
do?  Do they want we doing _everything_ to protect them?
The world over is still struggling with this.  There is consensus that
the Wikimedia movement wants to be at the forefront of that struggle,
and we are not there yet.

More appropriate questions are:

  What are the measures that Wikimedia is currently doing to ensure
female-friendly environments.

  What are the measures that other organisations are doing to ensure
female-friendly environments, which Wikimedia should be considering.

  Are there commonly accepted best practices which the Wikimedia
movement hasnt implemented; if so, what is blocking progress.

I suggest you look at
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Learning_patterns

And ask any follow up questions you have *on meta* - not here.

Wil, it is great you are getting a crash course in the wiki world.  It
isnt good that it is happening on wikimedia-l, where the entire
'movement' must watch your every bump and bingle.  You can do it all
in public, on the meta project.  That way, only the people who want to
help or hinder you need participate in that crash course spectacle.

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread MZMcBride
I just want to chime in here that I really enjoyed reading Molly and
John's recent posts in this thread. Simply fantastic posts.

I also loved posts from Thomas, Erik, and Milos in other threads from
the past day. I think this month of wikimedia-l has made me more
appreciative of some of the wonderful people in the Wikimedia movement and
I'm grateful for that.

And for anyone feeling discouraged about where we are right now, you need
only consult https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/ for
memories of bumpy times past that ultimately turned out pretty great. (I
got curious the other evening... check out June 2007 for Florence's
announcement of Sue's arrival to the Wikimedia Foundation and November
2007 and December 2007 for her transition to Executive Director. It's
pretty good reading and it made me feel a bit better.)

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Risker
On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com wrote:

  Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
  all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
  had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
  and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
  women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
  other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
  and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
  perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
  to hear about this from a female perspective.

 A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where
 people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that
 wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an
 inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at all.
 But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have been
 passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place for
 myself and others to post.

 You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention.
 Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the
 regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been motivating
 and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being
 scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also
 shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree,
 sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.

 You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a group
 of
 people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an
 extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard
 admin
 action but as some sort of clean-up after someone whom they feel I am
 desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a
 dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time until
 now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people who
 created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages mentioning
 me at EncyclopediaDramatica.

 So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more
 in-depth female perspective here and now.

 Yours,
 Molly (GorillaWarfare)



I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil.  I'm a woman who has held
positions that have attracted abuse and harassment  (directed both at me
and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I have
ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.

You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a
Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that
s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that was
left on a talk page.  Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never
edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And
yet, you could not leave it alone.  It was all about you, and how you were
done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history
of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English Wikipedia
(and other places) was treated.  (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to
telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn away
from IRC.)

So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes rather
than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created
that unsafe setting.  Several community members tried to draw you away from
continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be deterred.
Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively
participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of
behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women.

I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your
unwillingness to modify your behaviour or even try to work with the
Wikimedia community.  But today, you went too far.

Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Wil Sinclair
What???

What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
unsafe environment?

Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.

*No wonder people are afraid to post here!*

,Wil



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com wrote:

  Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
  all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
  had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
  and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
  women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
  other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
  and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
  perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
  to hear about this from a female perspective.

 A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where
 people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that
 wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an
 inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at all.
 But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have been
 passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place for
 myself and others to post.

 You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention.
 Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the
 regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been motivating
 and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being
 scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also
 shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree,
 sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.

 You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a group
 of
 people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an
 extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard
 admin
 action but as some sort of clean-up after someone whom they feel I am
 desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a
 dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time until
 now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people who
 created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages mentioning
 me at EncyclopediaDramatica.

 So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more
 in-depth female perspective here and now.

 Yours,
 Molly (GorillaWarfare)



 I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil.  I'm a woman who has held
 positions that have attracted abuse and harassment  (directed both at me
 and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I have
 ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.

 You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a
 Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that
 s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that was
 left on a talk page.  Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never
 edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And
 yet, you could not leave it alone.  It was all about you, and how you were
 done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history
 of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English Wikipedia
 (and other places) was treated.  (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to
 telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn away
 from IRC.)

 So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes rather
 than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created
 that unsafe setting.  Several community members tried to draw you away from
 continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be deterred.
 Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively
 participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of
 behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women.

 I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your
 unwillingness to modify your behaviour or even try to work with the
 Wikimedia community.  But today, you went too far.

 Risker
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Newyorkbrad
Wil:

Please take this particular aspect of the discussion offline without
further postings about it.

There are entirely legitimate reasons for my request and for the
expressions of concern from others that have come through in the past
couple of hours.  This request is not an attempt to stifle any form of
Wikipedia/Wikimedia criticism nor your becoming more familiar with the
projects and their communities.

Newyorkbrad/IBM


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 What???

 What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
 unsafe environment?

 Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.

 *No wonder people are afraid to post here!*

 ,Wil



 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
   Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
   all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
   had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
   and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
   women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
   other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
   and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
   perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
   to hear about this from a female perspective.
 
  A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where
  people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that
  wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an
  inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at
 all.
  But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have
 been
  passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place
 for
  myself and others to post.
 
  You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention.
  Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the
  regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been
 motivating
  and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being
  scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also
  shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree,
  sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.
 
  You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a
 group
  of
  people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an
  extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard
  admin
  action but as some sort of clean-up after someone whom they feel I am
  desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a
  dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time
 until
  now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people
 who
  created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages
 mentioning
  me at EncyclopediaDramatica.
 
  So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more
  in-depth female perspective here and now.
 
  Yours,
  Molly (GorillaWarfare)
 
 
 
  I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil.  I'm a woman who has held
  positions that have attracted abuse and harassment  (directed both at me
  and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I
 have
  ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.
 
  You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a
  Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that
  s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that
 was
  left on a talk page.  Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never
  edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And
  yet, you could not leave it alone.  It was all about you, and how you
 were
  done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history
  of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English
 Wikipedia
  (and other places) was treated.  (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to
  telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn
 away
  from IRC.)
 
  So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes
 rather
  than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created
  that unsafe setting.  Several community members tried to draw you away
 from
  continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be
 deterred.
  Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively
  participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of
  behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women.
 
  I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your
  unwillingness to modify your behaviour or 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Wil Sinclair
Why did you mail this to the public mailing list? It seems to be a
private communication.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil:

 Please take this particular aspect of the discussion offline without
 further postings about it.

 There are entirely legitimate reasons for my request and for the
 expressions of concern from others that have come through in the past
 couple of hours.  This request is not an attempt to stifle any form of
 Wikipedia/Wikimedia criticism nor your becoming more familiar with the
 projects and their communities.

 Newyorkbrad/IBM


 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 What???

 What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
 unsafe environment?

 Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.

 *No wonder people are afraid to post here!*

 ,Wil



 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
   Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
   all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
   had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
   and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
   women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
   other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
   and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
   perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
   to hear about this from a female perspective.
 
  A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where
  people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that
  wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an
  inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at
 all.
  But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have
 been
  passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place
 for
  myself and others to post.
 
  You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention.
  Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the
  regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been
 motivating
  and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being
  scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also
  shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree,
  sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.
 
  You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a
 group
  of
  people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an
  extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard
  admin
  action but as some sort of clean-up after someone whom they feel I am
  desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a
  dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time
 until
  now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people
 who
  created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages
 mentioning
  me at EncyclopediaDramatica.
 
  So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more
  in-depth female perspective here and now.
 
  Yours,
  Molly (GorillaWarfare)
 
 
 
  I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil.  I'm a woman who has held
  positions that have attracted abuse and harassment  (directed both at me
  and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I
 have
  ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.
 
  You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a
  Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that
  s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that
 was
  left on a talk page.  Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never
  edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And
  yet, you could not leave it alone.  It was all about you, and how you
 were
  done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history
  of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English
 Wikipedia
  (and other places) was treated.  (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to
  telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn
 away
  from IRC.)
 
  So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes
 rather
  than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created
  that unsafe setting.  Several community members tried to draw you away
 from
  continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be
 deterred.
  Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively
  participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Chad Horohoe
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 I just want to chime in here that I really enjoyed reading Molly and
 John's recent posts in this thread. Simply fantastic posts.

 I also loved posts from Thomas, Erik, and Milos in other threads from
 the past day. I think this month of wikimedia-l has made me more
 appreciative of some of the wonderful people in the Wikimedia movement and
 I'm grateful for that.


This.


 And for anyone feeling discouraged about where we are right now, you need
 only consult https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/ for
 memories of bumpy times past that ultimately turned out pretty great. (I
 got curious the other evening... check out June 2007 for Florence's
 announcement of Sue's arrival to the Wikimedia Foundation and November
 2007 and December 2007 for her transition to Executive Director. It's
 pretty good reading and it made me feel a bit better.)


2007 was...oh man.

I was such an immature asshat. How the heck did I never get banned?

-Chad
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Philippe Beaudette
*Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
@Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Chad Horohoe choro...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

  I just want to chime in here that I really enjoyed reading Molly and
  John's recent posts in this thread. Simply fantastic posts.
 
  I also loved posts from Thomas, Erik, and Milos in other threads from
  the past day. I think this month of wikimedia-l has made me more
  appreciative of some of the wonderful people in the Wikimedia movement
 and
  I'm grateful for that.
 
 
 This.



Yep.



  And for anyone feeling discouraged about where we are right now, you need
  only consult https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/ for
  memories of bumpy times past that ultimately turned out pretty great. (I
  got curious the other evening... check out June 2007 for Florence's
  announcement of Sue's arrival to the Wikimedia Foundation and November
  2007 and December 2007 for her transition to Executive Director. It's
  pretty good reading and it made me feel a bit better.)
 
 
 2007 was...oh man.

 I was such an immature asshat. How the heck did I never get banned?


What surprises me is how many of the names on the June 2007 archive are
people we still hear from.  Here's to old-timers.  :)

pb
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Molly White
Wil Sinclair wllm@... writes:

 
 What???
 
 What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
 unsafe environment?

I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted. 
 
 Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
 
 *No wonder people are afraid to post here!*

I've made my point, and I'm more or less done talking about this on-list,
probably for similar reasons as NYB. Feel free to contact me off-list if you
wish.

Yours,
Molly (GorillaWarfare)


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Wil Sinclair
Ah. You mean the edit that I didn't write, I didn't post to IRC, and
I've never actually seen.

Got it.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Molly White
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil Sinclair wllm@... writes:


 What???

 What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
 unsafe environment?

 I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted.

 Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.

 *No wonder people are afraid to post here!*

 I've made my point, and I'm more or less done talking about this on-list,
 probably for similar reasons as NYB. Feel free to contact me off-list if you
 wish.

 Yours,
 Molly (GorillaWarfare)


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Risker
No, Wil. I mean the repeated linking to a Wikipediocracy thread that
actively denigrates many of the other correspondents on this list; that
advocates that you use your personal influence to persuade the new ED to
fire WMF staff; that implies that every WMF-related IRC channel (there are
dozens, several of which are logged all the time) is littered with
gratuitous insults and poor behaviour. Your own comments tar every
Wikimedian and WMF staff member with the same brush.  You appear to have
accepted wholesale the information provided by people who have had a
negative experience while discounting the comments of anyone who encourages
you to try things out for yourself, no pressure.  And you've worked very
hard to try to force this community to discuss issues that are amongst the
most highly contentious on any internet community at your convenience and
with you framing the discussion, discounting any discussions that were had
before, many of which you could have found for yourself with a rather basic
google search.

You knew all along that there was a security concern about the events
relating to that IRC discussion, and yet you persisted.  You would have
earned some respect if you had walked away from that, but you chose not to.
Now, I realise that you don't value the respect of Wikimedians very much.
But on a day when Lila should be celebrating, she is instead trying to deal
with the fallout of her life partner creating havoc amongst her staff and
the volunteers who contribute to the projects for which she will be
imminently responsible for.  That's sad beyond words.

Risker


On 28 May 2014 23:54, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Ah. You mean the edit that I didn't write, I didn't post to IRC, and
 I've never actually seen.

 Got it.

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Molly White
 gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
  Wil Sinclair wllm@... writes:
 
 
  What???
 
  What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
  unsafe environment?
 
  I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted.
 
  Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
 
  *No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
 
  I've made my point, and I'm more or less done talking about this on-list,
  probably for similar reasons as NYB. Feel free to contact me off-list if
 you
  wish.
 
  Yours,
  Molly (GorillaWarfare)
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Wil Sinclair
Thanks, Risker. I think there are a few inaccuracies in there.

* I link to threads on Wikipediocracy to demonstrate what I've
actually said. In some cases, it has been characterized here without
context. I'd prefer everyone just look at the original so that there
are no misconceptions. What other people post there is their own
business. I don't read the personal stuff, in any case, and I very
actively discourage it there.

* I believe I only talked about that one experience on the
#wikipedia-en IRC channel and haven't said anything about any other
channels.

* I have told the people on Wikipediocracy countless times that I have
no influence on Lila's profession decisions and that I refuse to get
involved with the WMF at all for the time being. I've told everyone
here, too, for that matter. I specifically said that I don't read the
personal stuff on Wikipediocracy, and that I don't discuss WMF
matters- staff or otherwise- with Lila.

* Every experience that I've discussed here has been my own.

* I don't know what security concerns you are talking about. Could you
elaborate with links?

* It's true. I value my self-respect far more than anyone else's, and
I maintain it by being true to myself and to everyone I deal with. But
I do value the respect of Wikimedians. In the end, I will either earn
it or not by continuing to be true to myself and acting in good faith
in all my dealings.

* Again, Lila's career is her own. If others choose to bring my
actions to her doorstep, it is their call. I've been very clear about
my role with respect to the WMF; basically, there isn't one. And I
would greatly appreciate it if everyone would stop bringing our
private relationship in to this discussion. I've decided that I won't
have anything to do with the WMF in any way. So our private lives are
no longer the community's business.

* I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in
protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly
interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as
the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain
outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies,
but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute
a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed.

I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've
basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were
directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive
reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me
ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are
coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally
upsetting?

Thanks again!
,Wil



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 No, Wil. I mean the repeated linking to a Wikipediocracy thread that
 actively denigrates many of the other correspondents on this list; that
 advocates that you use your personal influence to persuade the new ED to
 fire WMF staff; that implies that every WMF-related IRC channel (there are
 dozens, several of which are logged all the time) is littered with
 gratuitous insults and poor behaviour. Your own comments tar every
 Wikimedian and WMF staff member with the same brush.  You appear to have
 accepted wholesale the information provided by people who have had a
 negative experience while discounting the comments of anyone who encourages
 you to try things out for yourself, no pressure.  And you've worked very
 hard to try to force this community to discuss issues that are amongst the
 most highly contentious on any internet community at your convenience and
 with you framing the discussion, discounting any discussions that were had
 before, many of which you could have found for yourself with a rather basic
 google search.

 You knew all along that there was a security concern about the events
 relating to that IRC discussion, and yet you persisted.  You would have
 earned some respect if you had walked away from that, but you chose not to.
 Now, I realise that you don't value the respect of Wikimedians very much.
 But on a day when Lila should be celebrating, she is instead trying to deal
 with the fallout of her life partner creating havoc amongst her staff and
 the volunteers who contribute to the projects for which she will be
 imminently responsible for.  That's sad beyond words.

 Risker


 On 28 May 2014 23:54, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Ah. You mean the edit that I didn't write, I didn't post to IRC, and
 I've never actually seen.

 Got it.

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Molly White
 gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
  Wil Sinclair wllm@... writes:
 
 
  What???
 
  What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
  unsafe environment?
 
  I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted.
 
  Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
 
  *No wonder people 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Risker
Wil, the links?  They're harassment. If you don't understand that, you're
in no position to initiate a discussion about the subject.

Risker


On 29 May 2014 01:46, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Thanks, Risker. I think there are a few inaccuracies in there.

 * I link to threads on Wikipediocracy to demonstrate what I've
 actually said. In some cases, it has been characterized here without
 context. I'd prefer everyone just look at the original so that there
 are no misconceptions. What other people post there is their own
 business. I don't read the personal stuff, in any case, and I very
 actively discourage it there.

 * I believe I only talked about that one experience on the
 #wikipedia-en IRC channel and haven't said anything about any other
 channels.

 * I have told the people on Wikipediocracy countless times that I have
 no influence on Lila's profession decisions and that I refuse to get
 involved with the WMF at all for the time being. I've told everyone
 here, too, for that matter. I specifically said that I don't read the
 personal stuff on Wikipediocracy, and that I don't discuss WMF
 matters- staff or otherwise- with Lila.

 * Every experience that I've discussed here has been my own.

 * I don't know what security concerns you are talking about. Could you
 elaborate with links?

 * It's true. I value my self-respect far more than anyone else's, and
 I maintain it by being true to myself and to everyone I deal with. But
 I do value the respect of Wikimedians. In the end, I will either earn
 it or not by continuing to be true to myself and acting in good faith
 in all my dealings.

 * Again, Lila's career is her own. If others choose to bring my
 actions to her doorstep, it is their call. I've been very clear about
 my role with respect to the WMF; basically, there isn't one. And I
 would greatly appreciate it if everyone would stop bringing our
 private relationship in to this discussion. I've decided that I won't
 have anything to do with the WMF in any way. So our private lives are
 no longer the community's business.

 * I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in
 protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly
 interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as
 the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain
 outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies,
 but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute
 a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed.

 I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've
 basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were
 directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive
 reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me
 ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are
 coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally
 upsetting?

 Thanks again!
 ,Wil



 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  No, Wil. I mean the repeated linking to a Wikipediocracy thread that
  actively denigrates many of the other correspondents on this list; that
  advocates that you use your personal influence to persuade the new ED to
  fire WMF staff; that implies that every WMF-related IRC channel (there
 are
  dozens, several of which are logged all the time) is littered with
  gratuitous insults and poor behaviour. Your own comments tar every
  Wikimedian and WMF staff member with the same brush.  You appear to have
  accepted wholesale the information provided by people who have had a
  negative experience while discounting the comments of anyone who
 encourages
  you to try things out for yourself, no pressure.  And you've worked very
  hard to try to force this community to discuss issues that are amongst
 the
  most highly contentious on any internet community at your convenience and
  with you framing the discussion, discounting any discussions that were
 had
  before, many of which you could have found for yourself with a rather
 basic
  google search.
 
  You knew all along that there was a security concern about the events
  relating to that IRC discussion, and yet you persisted.  You would have
  earned some respect if you had walked away from that, but you chose not
 to.
  Now, I realise that you don't value the respect of Wikimedians very much.
  But on a day when Lila should be celebrating, she is instead trying to
 deal
  with the fallout of her life partner creating havoc amongst her staff and
  the volunteers who contribute to the projects for which she will be
  imminently responsible for.  That's sad beyond words.
 
  Risker
 
 
  On 28 May 2014 23:54, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
  Ah. You mean the edit that I didn't write, I didn't post to IRC, and
  I've never actually seen.
 
  Got it.
 
  ,Wil
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Molly White
  gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com wrote: