Talk:Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Provide for Safety and Inclusion

Universal Code of Conduct or Terms of Use for the WMF?

A Universal Code of Conduct (now in disguise as "Code of Conduct") has been discussed at enormous length and without collecting strong support, but here it is. See this specific talk page for examples. Meanwhile, what has happened to the most supported of all proposals, Terms of Use for the WMF? EddieHugh (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Wikimedia world is more than English Wikipedia and english speaking persons that is active in the discussion you refer to. And I am very glad to see that the workgroups behind these recommendations have a much broader background and be more representative for the movement. From my small community we welcome this recommendation and a Code of Conduct. And why do you single out WMF? It will become one of many resource centres around the world in the "new" Wikimedia Movement.Yger (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eddie. What I observe in the en.wp discussions of universal codes of conduct is two things. First, a belief that existing English Wikipedia policies and processes are adequate to prevent harassment and make the project welcoming to newcomers. Second, a strong level of mistrust in the WMF as an organisation from those community members who are commenting. The recommendations do disagree with the first, but they also aim to address the second. If you look at the other recommendations, things like a Movement Charter and Global Council are aimed at (among other things), clarifying expectations about how entities like WMF interact with volunteer communities, as well as providing structures for community feedback to the WMF, and (as Yger points out) also gradually moving some responsibilities away from the WMF to other entities. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mention the English Wikipedia. I was referring to the discussions that have been reported and taken place here on metawiki. And I didn't single out the WMF either. The proposal to have terms of use for the WMF attracted the most support, and almost no opposition, during the discussions here, yet it has been ignored. I appreciate your middle-grounding, Chris, but who will decide what the relationship between the WMF et al. and the volunteers becomes? EddieHugh (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please look through the persons taken part "in the discussion on meta". I see (more or less) only users from English Wikipedia. Being from another community and being non-native in English I never engage in those type of discussion, and I am not alone feeling very uneasy (intimidated) taking part, both because of the language but also the tone. Actually in our community we never use RFC at all, we just discuss an issue. And I see the aggressive tone from Enwp toward WMF, as against the values I see a central to the movement: respect and basic decency.Yger (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't checked where the contributors to that do most of their editing. You might have missed the section in German, complaining about the proposal not being in other languages, and later sections that are also in German. And it's not an RfC; it's the normal discussion page of a content page that was started by a WMF employee. And suggesting that English Wikipedia has been disrespectful towards the WMF is... I'll be polite and just say 'the wrong way round' (and that has been publicly acknowledged by WMF employees). EddieHugh (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yger: At the "Terms of Use for the WMF" discussion: Of the 53 people who commented there, only 15 were from the English Wikipedia, which is very much disproportionately few, given that 42% of all active Wikipedia editors are from ENWP. 32 were from DEWP, two from Wikidata, one each from PTWP, NLWP, and ROWP, and me (no idea what project to categorize myself under). Consensus was unanimous. --Yair rand (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistake.Yger (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

As predicted, during the supposed 'community consultations', the decision to go ahead was taken a long time ago. Formal announcement. EddieHugh (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Gender gap, yes -- but why the leap that this is due to the lack of a safe environment?

The rationale says "Among the common causes for the gender gap and other gaps in diversity in content and contributors is the lack of a safe and inclusive environment."

I think this needs clarification and evidence. Yes, there are disparities in the demographics of those who edit Wikipedia. Most notably, there are many more male than female editors. However, why is the "lack of a safe (...) environment" a main factor in lesser female participation?

I only know that there is this gender gap because of the studies conducted by the WMF; I would never know in my editing contributions because almost everyone has a pseudonym as a username and I don't know their identity. How would anyone be able to make Wikipedia unsafe for females if in the first place we don't know who is who?

That is one of the key virtues of Wikipedia: no matter a person's "real life" identity and credentials, that is all put aside when becoming an editor, and the only thing to be judged is the quality of their contributions. No matter if they are a PhD or a junior student, all are equally welcome to participate in good faith.

I can imagine a tiny number of instances when harassment targeting a person's identity may have happen. But it must be a really small number of instances that I don't believe really moves the needle in terms of attracting much greater number of participants.

Sometimes editors are harsh to newcomers, that is a known issue, and a more prevalent one in my estimation. But that harshness is regardless of the editor's identity. Editors at times also aggressively debate issues, and I have never seen those happening as ad hominem attacks about a person's identity.

So I am really puzzled, is this really a major issue? And if so, where is the evidence for it? I would appreciate anyone who could shed light on this. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Results from Strategy Lunch at Wikimania 2024

A lunchtime session was held at Wikimania with about 50 attendees, to discuss how individual Wikimedians see selected strategic initiatives. They were asked "What is happening now to support this strategic initiative? What do you want to do that will support this strategic initiative?"

One discussed strategic initiative was: Healthy community atmosphere

The participants (two tables) identified the following:

Happening now

• Universal code of conduct and U4C being established
• Africa growth pilot

What we can do

• Wikimedia Foundation can support research, but topics for that can be suggested by community members/affiliates
• More in-person events (pizzas!) can help to humanise projects/problems/people
• Increased socialising - facilitating community conversations on different channels (example - Discord)
• Affiliates and/or Wikimedia Foundation can support creation of a global co-ordination space for gender related work (so that interested community members can more easily find information, help, like-minded people)
  • This can help smaller communities to change their composition
• Communication about what is happening in other wikis can be more centrally shared, so we all do not feel so isolated
• Stricter grant-giving rules

Reporting the results, Risker (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)