Correction: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In my earlier email I said: *"In this specific case, one of the two contributors once, over a decade ago, posted a link to a Dramatica page containing their name and a previous place of employment (different from their current place of employment as shared in the essay)."* This was incorrect. All the contributor did, well over ten years ago after having been doxed, was to say (in frustration) that if people wanted more personal info, they could find it on Encyclopedia Dramatica. I am really sorry to have gotten that detail wrong, because it makes a material difference, as far as the letter of policy is concerned. For even back then, WP:OUTING expressly required the *posting of a link*. A. On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 2:00 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Wikimedia Foundation Trustees and all, > > The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) has been in force for some time. The > Enforcement Guidelines have now been endorsed by the community. But as with > any new document, shared understandings and clarifications must develop > over time. Until then, practical enforcement is anything but routine. Here > is an example. > > Section 3.1 of the UCoC states that the following is harassment: > > *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private > information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address > without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or > elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity > outside the projects.* > > As you are no doubt aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author > recently published an academic essay criticising aspects of the English > Wikipedia's Holocaust coverage. In their essay, the authors mention the > legal names and the places of employment of two longstanding Wikipedia > contributors who, as WMF Trust & Safety will confirm, have suffered years > of egregious harassment because of their Wikimedia participation. I > understand this has included threats to their children, calls to their > workplace asking for them to be fired, etc. > > Given this history, the authors' decision to share precise information > about these contributors' workplaces in their academic essay struck me as > ill advised. It is hard to justify on scholarly grounds – the Holocaust > topic area is unrelated to the academic positions held by these two > Wikipedians. And surely it must have occurred to the authors that providing > information on their workplaces might exacerbate the harassment they are > already experiencing, of which the authors were well aware. > > Needless to say, neither of the two contributors gave their consent to > having their names and workplaces shared in the essay, which criticises > them severely – and in at least some cases very unfairly. > > Given that explicit consent is what the UCoC requires for sharing of > personal information, sharing details of these Wikimedians' workplaces – > especially in the context of harsh and inflammatory criticism of their > editing, and a long history of prior harassment suffered by these > contributors – struck me as a bright-line violation of UCoC Section 3.1, > specifically: > > *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private > information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address > without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or > elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity > outside the projects.* > > The reason I am mentioning this here is that the English Arbitration > Committee, which opened an arbitration case soon after publication of the > essay, appears largely to have taken a different view to date, preferring > to apply the most charitable interpretation of a local English Wikipedia > policy instead of the UCoC definition.[1] > > Local policy on English Wikipedia says that sharing a contributor's > personal information (on Wikipedia) is not harassment if said contributor > has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, > on Wikipedia at some time in the past.[2] In this specific case, one of the > two contributors once, over a decade ago, posted a link to a Dramatica page > containing their name and a previous place of employment (different from > their current place of employment as shared in the essay). I understand > they tried later on to have that edit oversighed but were refused. The > other contributor is open about their legal name and workplace on > Wikipedia. > > As we can see, the English Wikipedia's local policy is not aligned with > the UCoC. The UCoC – which we are told defines a minimum standard that > takes precedence over any and all local policies and must not be ignored or > circumvented – demands that Wikimedians wanting to share other > contributors' personal information obtain "explicit consent" from the > contributors concerned. "Explicit consent" is generally considered to be a > much higher standard than implied consent.[3] "Explicit consent" is telling > an author, "Yes, it is fine for you to mention my name and workplace in > your essay." > > And unlike local policy, the UCoC says that it covers conduct outside of > Wikimedia spaces as well. It says it applies to – > > *all Wikimedia projects, technical spaces, in-person and virtual events, > as well as the following instances:* > > *Private, public and semi-public interactions* > *Discussions of disagreement and expression of solidarity across community > members* > *Issues of technical development* > *Aspects of content contribution* > *Cases of representing affiliates/communities with external partners* > > On the face of it, "public interactions" and "expressions of disagreement" > would seem to include writings a Wikimedian publishes about another > contributor in a journal, a newspaper, a blog, etc., or statements they > make about them in press interviews. > > ArbCom on the other hand appears to have taken the view that the UCoC only > applies to places "like Wikimedia listservs, affiliate zoom calls, and > Wikimedia in-person events. But that doesn't include peer reviewed papers." > > So, the question I am now unclear about is: Are Wikimedians communicating > about Wikipedia outside of Wikimedia spaces – from academic journals, > newspapers and TV interviews to blogs and discussion forums – bound by the > UCoC (and specifically Section 3.1) or not? Very specifically, are they > permitted to share contributors' private information such as their > workplace address in these various venues, without obtaining explicit > consent to do so? > > Clarification would be very welcome. I feel we do need some guidance as to > what the words in the UCoC are intended to mean in practice, and how much > leeway local projects should have in interpreting its intent. > > Regards, > Andreas > > > [1] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland/Analysis#Analysis_of_Andreas'_evidence_(UCoC_violation) > [2] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information > [3] See e.g. the GDPR-related explanation here: > https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/consent/what-is-valid-consent/#what5 >
_______________________________________________ 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/MWYFHXSHKSBO6VNOC7NJSCF7N2AYGK2L/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
