Hi Jonathan, Great post! Thank you for introducing a fresh and compelling perspective into the conversation, though I would suggest that this needs adjusting to take into account that Wikimedians' circumstances are vastly different depnding on where they live – a point I will return to below.
On-wiki, meanwhile, one of the arbitrators, Wugapodes, interprets[1] the Universal Code of Conduct to mean that sharing another Wikimedian's personal information and all the other bulletpoint examples of harassment in the Universal Code of Conduct[2] are *only* unacceptable if the behaviour fulfils certain criteria laid out in the section's preamble. This is actually an interesting point. I will explain what he means. Let's remind ourselves first how the UCoC's Harassment section begins (emphases mine, in ALLCAPS so they show in the list archive): ---- 3.1 – Harassment This INCLUDES any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome. Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment. Harassment often takes the form of emotional abuse, especially towards people who are in a vulnerable position, and may include contacting workplaces or friends and family members in an effort to intimidate or embarrass. In some cases, behaviour that would not rise to the level of harassment in a single case can become harassment through repetition. Harassment INCLUDES but is not limited to: [...] *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. ---- Wugapodes argues that sharing someone's name and workplace without their consent should *only* be unacceptable if it is judged by ArbCom to have been done *primarily* to "intimidate, outrage or upset a person" and is "beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment". Not performing this extra test, Wugapodes says, would lead to "absurd results": *'In the line you want us to take absurdly literally, we have the line ["]sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.["] Well, under your interpretation, looks like half my friends and family are harassing me. Let me call over my partner, "Yes, hi honey, remember when you told your friends that I'm a Wikipedia arbitrator? Well, unfortunately, I did not give you explicit permission to do so and you have therefore harassed me. I have reported you to the Foundation.'* I agree with him inasmuch as the literal meaning of the passage he quotes is patently absurd. (I have said exactly the same before.) But does the community agree that it is okay for a Wikimedian to share a fellow Wikimedian's legal name, workplace and so on, as long as it is not done "primarily" to intimidate etc. and is in line with "what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment"? Historically, outing rules on Wikipedia have been much stricter. One of the reasons for this is that even if there is no *intent* to intimidate or harm, outing can have *extremely* severe consequences for Wikimedians, depending on (1) what they write about and (2) where they live and work – recall the two Wikimedians currently serving long jail sentences in Saudi Arabia[3]. Moreover, Wugapodes' interpretation, while internally consistent, does not follow from the UCoC text as it stands. The preamble says what harassment " INCLUDES" and the bulletpoints also begin with "Harassment INCLUDES ..." If I have two sentences, "Fruit includes things that taste sweet" and "Fruit includes apples", it does not logically follow that apples are only fruit if they taste sweet. Am I the only person who sees a logical non-sequitur here? Andreas [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=1153350996 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Special_report On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 4:34 PM <jehoch...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Andreas, > > By way of disclosure I am a researcher at the Yale Applied Cryptography > Laboratory and I have been studying the tension between the right to > privacy and the need for legal accountability when content is posted > online. > > My working theory is that we need to avoid creating lawless zones on the > internet. When content is posted online, the poster has to be accountable > in some way to avoid social harms like the harassment of individuals or > groups. > > One way we create accountability on Wikipedia and within Wikimedia > projects is to say that personal information may not be weaponized to > intimidate another editor. I strongly support our policy against doxing. > However, intent matters. > > If I find an account that appears to be connected to a business, and it is > spamming Wikipedia with links to that business, it is not unreasonable for > me to point out the apparent connection and suggest that the account should > be held accountable for violating terms of service against spam. On the > other hand, if I name an editor to try to silence them, that is clearly > wrongdoing by me. > > If a Wikipedian goes to another platform, like Wikipediaocracy, or a > similar site that has minimal editorial standards, and posts doxing content > or defamatory content using a pseudonym, our only way to create > accountability is to sanction the account of the Wikipedian. There's a void > of legal accountability when dealing with a pseudonymous account and a site > like Wikipediaocracy that enjoys Section 230 immunity (i.e. only the > poster is responsible for its content, not the platform). > > In contrast, if a researcher writes under their real life name in a > publication that exercises editorial control, a person targeted by that > content has strong recourse. A purported victim can sue the author for > defamation, and they can also sue the publication who has exercised > editorial control. It seems unreasonable for Wikipedia to sanction the > author when there is already legal accountability, especially if the author > may only be a casual Wikipedian (not sure if that's true in the case you > mentioned). > > Because these two situations are different, Wikimedia should take a > nuanced approach that holds Wikimedians responsible for doxing and > harassment, but avoids chilling free speech, especially among academics. > This might require rewriting the Code of Conduct or issuing guidance on > when to apply the Code to off-site activities. > > Best regards, > Jonathan Hochman > (Jehochman) > _______________________________________________ > 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/LGCHIZEL747NLKX7R3BDNCTANSPUAXUD/ > 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/LGOAHBPENKMQEE3AEOCRRZRXB6HYZAF4/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
