I have been working on the UCoC about as long as anybody, if not as intensely as some. Hence, I have some confidence in saying that it is the Foundation's role to shepherd the Movement Strategy recommendation to reality in creating a baseline of behavioral standards that are movement-wide. *I* have opinions about what is and is not good conduct and how conduct can and should be reinforced, but the Code of Conduct was not written to reflect *my* opinions *or* the Foundation's - the drafting committee was a disparate group working to incorporate the feedback of volunteers and staff from all across the movement.
The questions you raise strike me as very good discussion good points for the planned future policy review. Policies run into gray areas unless they are so generic as to be toothless. We will occasionally have hard conversations in application when we discover unintended or negative consequences. This is not a new challenge to the movement. I think it's one of the things Wikimedia does rather well. In terms of "in good faith" and "is malicious" - my understanding of malice from both a linguistic and legal sense is that it includes the *intent* to do harm. Beyond that, while your question "How can they be prevented from inserting erroneous material without causing them to doubt their own perceptions etc. in a way that they may well – in good faith – is malicious?" - seems to have lost a verb or two perhaps, I think what you are asking is how people can be prevented from inserting material without maliciously causing them to doubt their own perceptions: [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]] do not require malice in calling for consensus-defined reliable sources and avoiding fringe material. That said, again, this strikes me as a discussion for the future policy review, and if actual issues arise in the meantime I have no doubt discussion will happen. Best, Maggie On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:47 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Maggie, > > Could I ask you for help with a couple of things: > > 1. The UCoC states that "sharing information concerning other > contributors' Wikimedia activity outside the projects" is harassment. Is it > really the WMF's intention to prohibit public discussions of controversial > editing? To give some examples, in the past English Wikipedia arbitrators > commented on cases like the Scientology case or the Indian Institute of > Planning and Management (Wifione) case in the press. Following the letter > of the UCoC, they would no longer be allowed to do so. Even articles like > https://www.cnet.com/science/features/wikipedia-is-at-war-over-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/ > fall foul of the letter of the UCoC as written today, with every Wikipedian > involved in it guilty of harassment, per the UCoC. Is it really your > intention to prevent volunteers from discussing anyone's Wikipedia activity > outside the project? And if it isn't – could you help us prevail upon your > colleagues in the WMF board and the drafting committee to just fix the > sentence and have it unambiguously say what they really mean? > > 2. The UCoC states that the following is harassment: "Psychological > manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, > senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force > someone to behave the way you want." We have, and always have had, and > always will have, users with sincerely and passionately held fringe beliefs > about matters of science, politics, religion, etc., as well as users > lacking basic compentency in the subject area or language they choose to > work in. How can they be prevented from inserting erroneous material > without causing them to doubt their own perceptions etc. in a way that they > may well – in good faith – is malicious? > > Andreas > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:02 PM Maggie Dennis <mden...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > >> Let me clarify a few points. >> >> - The vote was intended to surface what concerns might exist more >> broadly in the international communities, not all of whom engage in Meta >> discussions. Staff were neither asked to convince people to vote for the >> enforcement guidelines as written nor even encouraged to. They are not >> held >> to account for the speed with which the Guidelines are approved nor for >> the >> language within it. It is their job to facilitate. >> - The vote threshold is the point at which it is ready to engage >> the Board for their further directions. We expect to see issues coalescing >> in a way to help funnel attention to them to provide input >> internationally, >> in multilingual facilitated review. >> - The intention is indeed that if major issues have been identified >> in the enforcement guidelines, they will go back to a vote, again and >> again, until there is a version that is workable, with a period before >> each >> vote for evaluating issues and addressing them. >> - The UCoC drafters have been international volunteers with >> experience working on Wikimedia projects from multiple angles and multiple >> languages. They do not all agree on every line as written and have worked >> very hard to come up with a document that can be tested and refined until >> it is ready to be put into use. >> >> It is true that the policy and guideline are not open to editing in the >> same way that some local community policies are. Like the Terms of Use >> itself and the Privacy Policy, neither of which are open to edits, it is a >> document that will have formal methods for modification. In the case of the >> UCoC, the plan is to review it (policy and enforcement guideline) on an >> annual basis to see what is working and what is not, with an understanding >> that behavioral policies can work in unexpected ways and have unexpected >> outcomes and even that what people understand to be acceptable behavior and >> unacceptable behavior evolves over time. >> >> Best, >> Maggie >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:10 AM Yair Rand <yyairr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Our conduct policies were carefully crafted by hundreds of brilliant >>> people over the course of twenty years, building upon endless experience >>> and detailed discussions that could fill books upon books. >>> >>> The UCoC Project ... seems to be built to supersede all that we've built >>> in this area, with an extremely inadequate replacement. It apparently >>> abandoned the idea of being a "minimal baseline" in favor of including >>> every preferred (and even aspirational) point available. The Enforcement >>> Guidelines thoroughly place the UCoC itself front-and-center, requiring >>> extensive linking and pushing it to be read by everyone (we have a hard >>> enough time getting people to read the existing conduct policies; making >>> everything link to UCoC will definitely drastically reduce the reach of >>> existing policies if not eliminate their presence outright), mandatory >>> pledges/affirmations of the UCoC and compulsory UCoC training (both as >>> prerequisites to sysop participation, conditions which will likely strip >>> the ranks). >>> >>> The UCoC is a text that the community did not write. It remains filled >>> with dozens of very serious issues, but volunteers were never invited to >>> edit it. Basic attempts at even cleaning up the document's language were >>> reverted, as the staff are quite clear that it is not a Wikimedia document >>> that community efforts may be directly part of. Larger issues were ignored. >>> Even if we were to grant the idea that we would centralize conduct policies >>> and remove local variation in acceptable practices, it looks to me that >>> this attempt at producing a viable policy did not work. The WMF appointees >>> who wrote the UCoC, while they surely worked hard on the document over the >>> few months given to write the text, were quite reasonably not capable of >>> doing the kind of work we typically expect from the large numbers of >>> experienced volunteers who build core policies over the course of a much >>> longer time period. >>> >>> Even taking into account the WMF's extensive campaign to convince people >>> that the UCoC was good (and to vote accordingly), and their admission that >>> they intended to keep pushing the UCoC indefinitely until a vote passed in >>> the direction they wanted, I am surprised and dismayed at the result of the >>> vote. The 57% support outcome (or 58.6% if one discounts neutral votes, as >>> is often the practice), while well below the amount typically needed to >>> establish consensus for a policy, is above the threshold the WMF determined >>> to use for their own purposes. >>> >>> I don't know where we can go from here, or what the Board will do with >>> this situation. Numerous contributors have already pointed out that these >>> numbers fall clearly under "no consensus". The staff seem to have realized >>> that removing sysop tools from a large portion of the admin corps as >>> required would be disastrous. One of the more egregious problems present in >>> the UCoC text is already likely to be the subject of review following an >>> open letter by a user group, though many, many others remain largely >>> unconsidered. Local community preparatory work for dealing with possible >>> WMF action is ... roughly what I would expect (including the commitments to >>> not cooperate with UCoC efforts, or to implement them). >>> >>> This is a pretty bad situation. >>> >>> -- Yair Rand >>> >>> >>> >>> בתאריך יום ג׳, 5 באפר׳ 2022 ב-17:32 מאת Stella Ng < >>> s...@wikimedia.org>: >>> >>>> Hello All, >>>> >>>> We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians who participated in >>>> the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines >>>> for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) >>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines>. >>>> At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the >>>> review of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available >>>> on Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below: >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> 58.6% Yes, 41.4% No >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote >>>> - >>>> >>>> Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot >>>> >>>> >>>> What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board >>>> to review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines >>>> are automatically complete. >>>> >>>> From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments >>>> provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The >>>> Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their >>>> consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and >>>> examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further >>>> refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki >>>> and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for >>>> revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the >>>> voter’s responses. >>>> >>>> In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC >>>> project team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. >>>> Some of these proposals include working with community members to form the >>>> U4C Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting >>>> conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to >>>> be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work. >>>> >>>> Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement >>>> guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively >>>> work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as >>>> presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways >>>> over the last year. >>>> >>>> Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of >>>> the Enforcement Guidelines. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team >>>> >>>> Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> Public archives at >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/B42TE3IZNGKTEPBMORULKNDVJIXM6AC7/ >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NRZTXU6LYAJ24D5U4WZKM3EXKC2WMBND/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> >> >> -- >> Maggie Dennis >> She/her/hers >> Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability >> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/CYL5BQB4ZZTYRYUACQ27DQ6AMUVQ7ZPX/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PODLPYFHLJLJFPND7HXVEJ62FL5LMCVL/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org -- Maggie Dennis She/her/hers Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WWGTPANF6REIB2WKBSCNNNVVQORA4ONP/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
