Talk:Universal Code of Conduct

Active discussions
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

Archives of this page


First a ToU for the WMFEdit

Here was a wonderful suggestion for a ToU, that the WMF should give itself in regard of their relationship to the communities. Unless they stop trying to rule from above and start listening to the communities and behave as the facilitator they are, not the leader, nbody will have any trust in them any longer. The WMF ist one of the problems in terms of conduct, they should Change quickly. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The WMF does not have ToU for staff that are different from those that apply to everyone else, but there is a Code of Conduct that applies especially to staff and board members. You can read it here. All staff members are bound by their contracts to adhere to this Code of Conduct. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
? So? It seems to me the Policy of WMF and the suggested ToU have nothing in common!? I doubt that the intention is that "WMF signs something". Its the content that matters, right? ...Sicherlich Post 18:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
That was a non-answer. We want a ToU for the organisation WMF, the service organisation of the Wikiverse, that gets all legitimacy from the authors of the different projects and has absolutely no legitimacy on its own. They have botched quite a lot in last years, they have acted mote then once in the last years against the communities, and they don't seem to have learned that much from their grave mistakes. They should eat a lot of humble pie and have a lot to apologise for to the communities. That ToU as binding guidelines would be a nice start. There is absolutely nothing in it, that cannot be subscribed by the WMF.
Das war jetzt nur eine völlig unzureichende Nichtantwort. Wir wollen ToU für die Organisation WMF, für die Serviceorganisatuion des Wikiversums, die ihre gesamte Legitimation von den AutorInnen der verschiedenen Projekte bekommt und keinerlei selbständige Legitimation besitzt. Die WMF hat in den letzten Jahren viel Porzellan zerschlagen, sie haben mehrfach gegen die Community gearbeitet, und sie scheinen nichts aus ihren groben und bösen Fehlern gelernt zu haben. Sie sollten ordentlich Kreide fressen und sich endlich glaubhaft bei den Communities entschuldigen. Diese ToU als bindende Richtlinie wäre ein netter Anfang. Es gibt absolut nicht da drin, was nicht von der WMF unterschrieben werden könnte. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Hallo User:Sänger. Anmerkung: ToU, also "Terms of Use", sind eine vertragliche Vereinbarung zwischen Personen ("Customer") und einem Dienstleister ("Service Provider"). Theoretisch könnte man die Community als Anbieter des Dienstes 'Schreiben einer Enzyklopädie' betrachten. Das knirscht aber an allen Ecken und Enden. Es fängt damit an, dass die (globale) Community rein praktisch nicht wie eine kohärente Entität handeln kann. Auch auf der anderen Seite gibt es begriffliche Reibungen. Die WMF ist eben keine Person sondern eine Organisation. Deswegen halte ich auch für den Vorschlag von Tinz die Bezeichnung "Code of Conduct", also "Verhaltenskodex" für passender. Viele Grüße, -<(kmk)>- (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Du hast im Prinzip recht, ich habe schlicht die Terminologie von Tinz übernommen. Wichtig ist vor allem, dass die endlich aufhören so zu tun, als seien sie der Boss sondern anfangen mit den tatsächlichen Bossen, den Communities zusammenzuarbeiten. Bisher haben sie schon des öfteren aus reiner Machgier riesige Konflikte vom Zaun gebrochen, und irgendwie kommt es einem angesichts von FRAMBAN nicht so vor, als würden sie ihr Verhalten jemals reflektieren. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Die WMF ist in der realen Welt verhaftet und somit nicht logischerweise Teil einer digitalen „Kumbaya-Wolke“ oder einer „Community“ die jedes Mitglied der „Community“ anders definiert. Eine ToU muss für alle gelten daraus ergibt sich dann ein ToC der auch für alle gilt. Die Frage eines ToC adressiert aber ein Problem welches gelöst werden muss, wenn nicht, ist der Käs gegessen und Wikipedia über kurz oder lang Geschichte und ein Eintrag in einer anderen Enzyklopädie.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What about this? The WMF showed their disregard for the community just yesterday with their rebranding proposals, that all completely ignored community consensus just to push their private point of view. As long as this mindset of ignorance towards the community is not satisfactorily dealt with, i.e. completely banned from any (WMF)er, there should be no UCoC by those uncivilized employees towards the community, that's like letting the fox look after the hen house. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 14:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ping. Just to not let all discussions vannish into the void of the archive. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 04:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems like WMF is getting increasingly out of touch with editors, i.e. people who actually create the Wikipedia. --Nomad (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this is really a great step to the right direction, particularly for editors like myself who comes from small language wikipedia's. I think the Universal code of conduct will enable us to edit on big wikipedia's like the English wikipedia without the fear of harrassment from other editors. Wikipedia belongs to all who edit it, old hands and newbies Bobbyshabangu (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that problem? The Wikipedia should belong to all who edit, that is the community, but it doesn't. It belongs to WMF, who is setting the rules (rather than the community).--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem of the "untouchable" 'jester'Edit

It is to be hoped that the Universal Code of Conduct also somehow provides the possibility to tackle the problem of the "untouchable" 'jester' – editors who know how not to cross the guidelines, yet are annoying to many up to the point of being a serial harasser, but who are nonetheless praised for their humor by many others (an example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#EEng_at_ANI). Greeting, Eissink (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC).

+1 This is frequently used on our projects to gaslight targets as self-victimizers who have no sense of humour. It's never funny to take the piss out of anyone's identity, or go out of your way to cause offence, for being genderqueer, homosexual, Jewish or Black, even if you claim the same thing. Let's not leave "jokers" an easy way to harass people they don't like. -- (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, there are some editors (including the OP) who do cross the guidelines [1] and then come over to Meta to forum-shop when they don't get their way. The term 'gaslighting' can be more accurately applied to this latter example. Lepricavark (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
-1 I don't understand the OP's beef with EEng, and this isn't the place to discuss it, but I believe it is massively inappropriate for an editor to describe another editor as being "annoying... ...to the point of being a serial harasser", on this or any other project, without some very clearcut evidence to back it up. To me, the above statement looks more like harassment than anything I saw reported at the linked ANI thread. I have a great deal of regard for as an editor, and have been the recipient of their assistance in the past for which I remain grateful, but I am concerned about the way they have framed their comment - it seems like an accusation that EEng intends to harass people based on their identity, which is a very long way from the truth, as I understand it to be. GirthSummit (blether) 00:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
That's a stretch. I have not read whatever apparent cage fight has been happening at ANI. I have not accused anyone of anything. My response was to the generic words opening this thread, not the "example" link. Let's stick to evidence of actual words used. -- (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
with respect, and I mean that, if you write '+1' after a comment that singles out an individual person for criticism, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to infer that you are agreeing with that criticism. If you haven't read the thread, and have no view on the specifics, may I suggest that you might try to be more precise in your comments, and take care to say that you agree with the general point without saying anything about the individual case? I too read your comment as saying that EEng was guilty of disparaging people based on their identity. GirthSummit (blether) 21:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
+1 I agree with the general notion of this concern. No one on the wikimedia projects should feel untouchable. No matter how many people find them humorous. Wikipedia's universal code of conduct needs to provide a more conducive editing environment. Also it helps to show to the world that Wikipedia is serious about correcting some clearly documented systemic problems. Fortunately, or unfortunately, everything we do is recorded and timestamped for all the world to see. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
We can all agree in general terms that no one should feel untouchable; the OP has made this about a specific person though, who has feelings of their own, and who, I am certain, does not feel untouchable. Wikipedia's universal code of conduct should not be used as a stick to beat someone with; indeed, it should be written in such as way as to prevent people from using it in such a manner. GirthSummit (blether) 08:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Fae, all due respect, that's some pretty serious stuff you're implying. Valereee (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
You may be inferring, rather than me implying. The words I used are correct and realistic, nor are they about any specific person. As I have zero idea about the OP's recent activities, I have nothing to say about them, if that's the inference.
"Jokes" and "jokers" should never be a rationale for a free pass for abuse, or even making our fellow contributors feel unwelcome on our projects. As an en.wp admin, it's likely that you are aware of these tactics being used which turn our projects into hostile environments for volunteers and new contributors who may otherwise have fresh voices to add to our evolved accidental gestalt of values or norms. -- (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
My mistake, then. You were responding to a post referencing a particular person, and I interpreted it as continuing that thread. I agree that we need to make contributors, both established and new, feel welcome. Valereee (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It is to be hoped that the Universal Code of Conduct also somehow provides the possibility to tackle the problem of people whose arguments are refuted at a local wiki and then run off to Meta to call someone a "serial harasser". 2A00:23C7:5528:1F01:FC74:A7D4:D2F0:A5C9 12:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This thread looks toxic. If anyone wants to discuss the valid generic issue and could positively address how the pending UCoC may or may not be able to help, a carefully worded fresh statement is necessary, preferably by a new OP without the likelihood of rabbit-hole tangents getting thrown in. -- (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  • OP here. I agree. I added the example, 1. because for me it was the occasion that triggered my awareness of a more general problem (and I do think it is a problem), and 2. because it does provide exactly the eternal stalemate dialogue between those who acknowledge the problem (not only me in this case, but some four others too) and those who persistently advocate "it's just good ol' UserXxx, you guys don't understand a joke", both sides including sysops. (And it is clear that there will always be individuals or groups who find this or that example is an exception.) I am aware that I have acted bold in the example discussion, but I did not have the intention to continue that discussion here, nor to particularly target the user involved. When 'locked up' in an existing set of norms or just in bad habit, every attempt to try to break out – or rather overcome – such status quo will meet opposition and incomprehension, but I saw no other way of addressing what I perceive as a problem, as a form of injustice for those affected, than to lift the problem to the larger context of the broader project's UCoC, even though I believe it can be tackled on the individual projects (otherwise the request here would be in vain). My far from fluent English makes me not the person to further expand the discussion of this issue. Thanks everyone for your replies. Eissink (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC).
  • There are often problems when a person labels someone else as something they do not personally identify as, and which is not clearly defined, without adequate evidence. This may not be recognised as offensive by the labeler, but it often is. Unfortunately humour often involves this sort of thing, tongue in cheek or not, and humour often does not translate well or reliably between cultures, even when they use the same language. If we are stuck with a choice between avoiding humour or avoiding giving offense, which will we choose, and why? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It amazes me that the OP makes (with impunity) clear personal attacks about a well-liked and prolifically constructive user who, at his worst, is annoying. Perhaps if OP had made such attacks against a less annoying user, they'd have been blocked by now. There is always great hue and cry against the uneven handling of incivility and personal attacks. So, ehre we are. OP's campaign against EEng transcends egregious incivility and rises to the level of harassment. A less calm user, possessed of a generosity of spirit, without an ounce of guile, would be up at harms EEng has dealt with OP's campaign of harassment far better than I would have were I in EEng's shoes.Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    With all due respect to , that is not what EEng does, has done, will do.Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I hope the UCoC will address things like users calling other users a "serial harasser" without evidence, as well as users who indicate agreement with such libelous accusations. Levivich (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • What are we to do about these terrible people who know how not to cross the line? The terrible, clever jesters with darkness in their hearts and lightness on their tongues? Those who audaciously demonstrate “a better understanding of what the community tolerates and accepts”? We can label them as harrassers, toxic unblockables, or members of the cabal, or whatever is the bogeyman du jour, and hope for an uncritical pile-on. But that's not enough, if they’re funny and have friends. Maybe once we have the great saving UCoC we can denounce them for Wrongthink and Doublespeak, and the authorities will punish them for us, in spite of what the community thinks is “socially acceptable”. Oh happy day! when the purge may begin. Pinging Barkeep49, EEng, Eissink, , Lepricavark, Girth_Summit, Guest2625, Valereee, Pbsouthwood, Deepfriedokra, Levivich. —Pelagic (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The words I used are correct and realistic, nor are they about any specific person. As I have zero idea about the OP's recent activities, I have nothing to say about them, if that's the inference. "Jokes" and "jokers" should never be a rationale for a free pass for abuse, or even making our fellow contributors feel unwelcome on our projects.
Don't ping me until you can be bothered to read the words already written rather than taking cheap shots and making cheap sarcastic jokes. Thanks in advance. -- (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Fæ,
a) I did read what you wrote, and I did “discuss the valid generic issue”.
b) I agree with you that jokes and jokers should not be a free pass for abuse. But the threshold of what is or isn’t abusive is not always clear: in any particular case people will differ about "ok, s/he went too far that time". This discussion is specifically about “editors who know how not to cross the guidelines, yet are annoying to many”.
c) Is this about me writing “uncritical pile-on”? You did not pile-on. I wasn’t intending that as a cheap shot at you, and I apologise. If I'm misreading the situation, then please be more specific about how I caused you offence.
d) Labels such as "serial harasser" and descriptions "like Soandso tends to double down when challenged" do stick, and do feature as part of the pile-ons at AN/I, Arbcom, etc. The people piling on may be characterizing in good faith how they perceive their own grievances, but then others read those descriptions without digging into the evidence to assess for themselves. I wasn't saying that a pile-on is happening here, but that it does happen when someone gets dragged to the drama boards, and probably will happen when there is a UCoC enforcement body.
e) I'm fine with not pinging you. Next time I mention you without pinging, and someone calls me out on it, can I point back to this post? Pelagic (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pelagic Or we can just try to acknowledge that W. is not a personal blog and not a comedy contest and not a contest in any other form. Of course the young ones always will try and boast and never loose their energy and be savvy and be heroic and be the best editor to ever have done W. the honour to participate, but in boring discussions on boring articles they can be just a nuisance when continuously trying to punch down serious contributors. I'm sorry you have apparently not been able to grasp even what is said in this very short discussion section, and I'm even more sorry that you don't seem to have any idea what an UCoC is. By the way, I love "lightness on tongues" (if it weren't a poorly worded platitude), but it is rare, very rare, and unfortunately often confused with secondhand 'jokes'. Eissink (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC).
    @Eissink: We may have to "agree to disagree" (another platitude?) about the value and appropriateness of humour and "friendly banter [don't block]" in our boring discussions.
    You yourself started this discussion with “It is to be hoped that the Universal Code of Conduct also somehow provides the possibility to tackle the problem of ... editors who know how not to cross the guidelines”. I responded with “What are we to do about these terrible people who know how not to cross the line?” I don’t see how this demonstrates an inability to grasp the conversation, or having no idea what a UCoC is, at least on my part.
    English Wikipedia (among many other projects) already has long-standing policies and guidelines about acceptable behaviour. I think the UCoC itself won't cause an immediate change in what those communities consider problematic. Your ability to tackle untouchable jesters through mechanisms on w:en probably won’t change. Though there is a good chance of conflict and much argumentation if the UCoC definitions of harassment and abuse, drafted by a select handful of people, diverge from the current ones that have evolved over time through an imperfect "consensus" process.
    What will change is that the Foundation, or some body created by them, will start enforcing the UCoC. Any complaints process is open to potential abuse. Will the new measures have robust protections against ill-founded complaints? We'll see. But there is a very real danger that the new enforcers will be misused by individuals or organised groups to take down those they dislike or who don't conform to their ideology.
    Does that explanation conform to your “idea what an UCoC is”? Pelagic (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Eissink (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC).
Maybe if some of us started taking other people more seriously and ourselves less seriously we would have less of a problem. I think Kruger and Dunning might feel a twinge of deja vu reading through this discussion, but don't we all? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It's going to be fun to have a universal measure of jest. Nemo 12:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

How should Scunthorpe effects be addressed?Edit

How does the drafting committee intend to review their proposal for Scunthorpe issues? James Salsman (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sending money to Snøhetta and calling it Mission Accomplished. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@James Salsman: Do you think the draft (or its translations) will have pattern matches for rude words? Or do I misunderstand the gist of question?
Aside: is UCoC pronounced like “you-cock” by Anglophones? Will I put myself in the crosshairs if I mention le coq? Pelagic (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Blatantly, you are trolling this page and harassing other contributors who actually want to have a discussion. Go away please. -- (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Irreverent and flippant, sure. Harassing, hardly. Being told to "go away" on a CoC page, priceless. Pelagic (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
You are trolling. Locker-room penis jokes show this is a macho men only space, and anyone that finds it unacceptably hostile to be derided with penis jokes is then attacked as creating the problem if they complain.
You are creating the problem here. Your behaviour is unacceptable. You are demonstrating the "untouchable jester" problem which has eroded our communities across projects, ensuring that anyone that does not fall in with the locker-room white man culture is subject to a drip, drip of abuse until they are driven off. -- (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not a joke, I was thinking of text-to-speech. Did you not read what I wrote below? Pelagic (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I asked something in this direction as well here, the project Detox was something in this completely useless direction. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pelagic: I've heard it pronounced as spelled out ("you see oh see"). --Yair rand (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I haven't tried running our UCoC pages through any text-to-speech programs, Yair rand, but as far as I know they do tend to spell out most acronyms regardless of whether they could be phonetically pronounced. I guess some like NATO would have specific pronunciation entries (so that you get "nay-tow" rather than "en-ay-tee-oh")? JS is somewhat of an expert in this area, so it did cross my mind whether that was the Scunthorpe issue he was referring to, or something else. Pelagic (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of not getting in trouble for editing articles about prohibited things. It doesn't have to be sexuality. Suppose some insane king published a book entitled, "Citing this book is Treason," and because of the king's insanity, passed actual laws to make citing the book punishable by the king's elite overseas death squads. Would citing the source be a legal threat? That's a contrived example, but we know that small wording choices in laws can have widespread social impacts. James Salsman (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely follow your example, James, but concerns about overly broad or ambiguous definitions in the draft have been raised by several people. I hope the review process will result in good wording, but it can never be perfect. My own worry is more about people and groups who will use "the letter of the law" to hound their perceived opponents off the projects, or to stifle discussion, rather than articles about prohibited things. Pelagic (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Scientific racismEdit

 
Example of user created promotion of scientific racism. This diagram is derived from Figure 2 of "Craniometrics Reveal “Two Layers” of Prehistoric Human Dispersal in Eastern Eurasia", DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-35426-zdoi:10.1038/s41598-018-35426-z, 2019. "Mongoloid" and "Australoid" have been added, falsely making it appear that the research promotes scientific racism.
Talk:Black_Lives_Matter#Scientific_racism
Systemic promotion of
scientific racism
task T256115

Modern scientific racism is the promotion of genetic theories1 that 'Negroids', 'Australoids', 'Aryans', 'Caucasiods' are distinct races of humans and that these can be confirmed using genetic markers. This is frequently muddied with race theories of language and conflation with terms used for cultures and national traditions. Despite the WMF CEO stating "I support the community revising its policies to eliminate racist, misogynist, transphobic, and other forms of discriminatory content" after I put some examples of current misuse of our projects to promote race theories back in June 2020, there has been no action to do anything about it. Consequences of waiting indefinitely is that Google, Alexa and other search engines use our multi-language Wikipedias as the "truth" when anyone asks what the "races of humans" are. When they get Coon's 1930s White Race theory as the reply, this is taken as fact, and in that moment the Wikimedia Foundation's funds and reputation for countering fake news, becomes an engine that promotes racist bias.

In addition to kind words of general support against non-educational racist content, will the UCoC and the WMF's commitment to implementing it, make any measurable difference and result in the deletion of fake user created fantasy maps promoting scientific racism, seeing the use of bad sources promoting scientific racism being removed from articles or the promotion of "Negroid race" and similar being visibly marked as historic concepts in all languages? Or will it be business as usual, where zero consequence sock farms are free to continue lobbying and introducing scientific racism2 so our projects remain their forum for posting and justifying extremist race theories and alt-right race politics?

Footnotes

  1. Including user created pseudo-scientific maps, of which there are currently many on Wikimedia Commons.
  2. Example of some of the user created scientific racism hosted on Commons

Thanks! -- (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been a month since I raised this question. The silence is profound.
The tacit answer, based on off-wiki discussions, is no. The UCoC will do nothing of itself, or as a result of its enforcement, to address the deliberate promotion of Scientific Racism across our projects.
I'm tired, looking at the disgusting misuse of our projects to promote bigoted race theories, and trying to take baby steps to correct examples and being knocked back and resisted most of the time, is incredibly depressing, compounded by the lack of any recognition that this is a systemic problem for Wikimedia. -- (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

SupportEdit

I support existence of this. I don't think it is a risk for communities. It would help where there are problems with lack of local guidelines or problems that communities can't deal with. On wikis, where are proper processes it may just be a confirmation. --Wargo (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

A small FAQ about UCoCEdit

Hello, all. :) I’m the Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability. Trust & Safety report up to me. The Trust & Safety policy team have let me know that there are a few "meta" type questions about the UCoC and the Foundation’s approach to it. In the spirit of the conversation begun and documented here, I’m going to respond to some of these, anonymized and aggregated. I also note that I committed back then to doing more IRC office hours and haven’t gotten around to it yet. I need to get one of those on the books as soon as possible and will hope to have more information about that in a few weeks. I regret that my work doesn’t give me time to follow conversations on Meta, but if you have more questions you can email them to ca@wikimedia.org, with [CRS] in the subject line, and I will either aggregate and post them here or bring them to said office hour, when they’ll be posted as part of that transcript! You can also attend that office hour and ask me yourself. (I do still have the following conditions: (1) I can’t and won’t discuss specific Trust & Safety cases. Instead, I can discuss Trust & Safety protocols and practices and approaches as well as some of the mistakes we’ve made, some of the things I’m proud of, and some of the things we’re hoping to do. (2) I will not respond to comments or questions that are disrespectful to me, to my colleagues, or to anyone in our communities. I can talk civilly about our work even if you disagree with me or I disagree with you. I won’t compromise on this.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Subsidiarity principleEdit

Hi! I've posted some things on the draft talk page there which contain some comments on the draft (therefore i posted there) but also some questions regarding the implementation of the UCoC, which is why i posted the link on this page. All the best, --Ghilt (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. :) I probably would have missed it, since I'm not taking part in the UCoC consultations, but I'll see what I can clarify. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

WMF (and Wikimedia-affiliated) individuals vs non-WMF individuals in future processesEdit

I see that Phase II (Enforcement and Application) will arrive in a couple or few weeks. What will make WMF- and Wikimedia-affiliated individuals recognize that their opinions would be different from opinions of existing and newly non-WMF individuals (and those unaffiliated with Wikimedia)? How would the future processes, including the Enforcement Phase, recognize such differences? Furthermore, should the Board of Trustees' decision to implement and enforce UCoC override local projects' decisions (like enwiki's and dewiki's) to ignore the UCoC? George Ho (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Almost forgot. Should WMF individuals' and Wikimedia individuals' opinions matter more than non-WMF ones? George Ho (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nor will we distinguish based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement.Edit

the critique remains. Of course we distinguish by accomplishments. That's what a meritocracy does. And Wikimedia is defined at least in part as meritocracy: Wikimedia power structure#Meritocracy. As all projects are open to anonymous and pseudonymous contributions and real life credentials do not count, quality of edits is the most important factor of standing. And standing is paramount in interactions. Otherwise elections for functions would not exist. I strongly object to this clause in whole and suggest to remove it. --h-stt !? 15:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I fully subscribe to that. Of course we are an meritocracy, and that's just fine. Why sould we change that? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The UCoC says (emphasis added by me): "In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without distinction based on age, [...] sex or career field. Nor will we distinguish based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement." I guess the intention is that we should treat everyone with respect, and that's commendable. But: Of course I'll distinguish based on standing. For example, when I revert an IP edit, I often don't add a comment (they probably won't read it anyway), but when I revert an established editor, I almost always add a comment. And of course I distinguish based on standing when I communicate with others, e.g. I'm less polite towards editors who have been impolite or annoying themselves. The current wording of the UCoC is quite sloppy and/or based on a severe lack of experience and understanding of volunteer work on WP. -- Chrisahn (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Quoting Wikimedia power structure#Meritocracy is slightly taking it out of context. Wikipedia also has elements of a bureaucracy, but you wouldn't just link the section whenever referencing a pro-buro view. There is a limited domain of validity to each section of that page. And I suspect the UCOC's usage of "standing/skills/accomplishments" is referring to this part, from your own link:

If meritocracy is understood as a community where merits can be accumulated in a power status that afterwards is rendered untouchable whatever the quality of further contributions (or deletions), then Wikimedia is not a meritocracy: the quality of every separate contribution is, in this respect, considered in its own right, and for example, "votes for deletion" take little or no account of the persons that contributed to the questioned content, neither does any wikipedian's vote have more or less weight according to "merit" in such case.

I think the point is: no editor's views are inherently more valid than another's. And if that's indeed what it means, that's an important clause to have. Many in the community are inviting, but there exists a minority who are not, particularly to newer editors, or editors who move from one area to another. Such ideology is exclusionary and elitist, and it prevailing would mean this 'movement' has no future. I also don't think this statement is in conflict with the realities such as having to show merit and interest, over a period of time, to take up certain permissions. That could be viewed as an element of meritocracy, but it isn't in conflict with the statement at all, it's mostly a technical difference. I agree the current wording isn't great, which should be tidied up, but I think the point it is trying to make is valid. "The correct ideology" prevails by argument, not by identity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I, too, think that there is a problem with asserting that accomplishments and contributions do not matter. As I see it, there are times when those things ought to be taken into account, such as when considering what kind of sanctions should be applied to a user who has done something wrong, but has also done a lot of good - as opposed to someone who shows up just to do something contrary to community norms. I think that ProcrastinatingReader, just above me, has hit upon a key point: I suggest changing "Nor will we distinguish based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement." to "Nor will we value standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement more highly than cooperative and reasoned argument." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Past contribution history may not, in principle, matter in achieving consensus in individual discussions, where the weight of an argument is supposed to be more important than who said it, or in contributions to articles, where the weight of reliable sources and the quality of the prose should be more important than who wrote it. HOWEVER, we do "distinguish by accomplishments" when we hand out access rights, from bureaucrat, arbitrator, administrator down to page-mover, patroller, article creator, or confirmed. We also distinguish by accomplishments when we hand out barnstars or otherwise recognize contributors for their contributions. And we distinguish by (negative) accomplishments when we block vandals for vandalism or sockpuppets for sockpuppetry, or otherwise sanction long-term patterns of misbehavior. A code of conduct that outlaws that kind of distinction is a code of conduct with a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm really concerned about including "skills" in this statement of nondiscrimination. Skills include the ability to communicate clearly in writing, the ability to recognize what constitutes a reliable source, the ability to analyze, the ability to work collaboratively. This seems to be saying competence is not required. Valereee (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    I think it's just a poorly worded statement where (now) half a dozen different people have (quite reasonably) interpreted it in half a dozen different ways. I think most likely the message it's trying to send is the most sensible interpretation I try to expand on above, but it may well be the case they meant something else. Based on context, I think it's meant in a negative discriminatory way (eg, people aren't put down based on global standing, but instead on merit of argument; a 'correct' argument by a newcomer shouldn't be ignored solely because someone with standing disagrees). It's something where I think the underlying meaning is true, but the wording could do with some improvement. I certainly don't think it's trying to say that bad arguments or disruption are okay. Just that good arguments cannot be disregarded simply because the poster is an IP. It also seemingly denounces the idea of "unblockables". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

DoxingEdit

It seems to me that doxing clause basically forbids public paid editing investigations of any kind. It was like that on English Wikipedia for significant amount of time, but not all projects agree with such baseline. Also, per foundation:Privacy policy it is allowed for Wikimedia staff or "particular users with certain administrative rights" to "share your Personal Information if it is reasonably believed to be necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, this Privacy Policy, or any Wikimedia Foundation or user community-based policies". Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of Wikimedia terms of use, so Privacy policy allows forced disclosure in such cases while current UCoC draft does not. I think it's a serious flaw and should be amended in the UCoC. Another unclear point here is when an editor is a subject of an article and there is a reliable source confirming that this person is a specific Wikipedia editor, but editor himself hasn't consent to publishing this information in-wiki. Does the UCoC forbid to use this source in an article about this person? Adamant.pwn (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

JupyterCon/numFOCUS CoC caseEdit

I would like to note that there has been a CoC case at JupyterCon with the keynote speaker Jeremy Howard. The case was handled by NumFOCUS. It has created a stir in the community. I maybe worth that we follow the case and learn from it. Some background links are here:

  • JupyterCon's CoC [2]
  • "I violated a code of conduct" post by Jeremy Howard [3]
  • NumFOCUS tweet [4] (I expect a response from them)
  • Joel Grus' tweet [5]
  • Valerie Aurora's slides [6]

I am no expert on CoC and haven't read much about it. I note that Jeremy Howard states 'CoC experts recommend avoiding requirements of politeness or other forms of “proper” behavior, but should focus on a specific list of unacceptable behaviors. The JupyterCon CoC, however, is nearly entirely a list of “proper” behaviors (such as “Be welcoming”, “Be considerate”, and “Be friendly”) that are vaguely defined'. I see no citation for "CoC experts recommend avoiding requirements of politeness", but it may be worth examining further. I note that Aurora write 'Do not require politeness or other forms of "proper" behavior (e.g., don't ban interrupting)' on the slides, but that the Ada Initiative points to the Django Code of Conduct [7] as a good examples and that Django's CoC has "Be welcoming" — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is Phase 2?Edit

The Phase 2 was supposed to happen between September and December of this year. We're reaching the end of the year, so what is happening to Phase 2? George Ho (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well hopefully the UCoC gets cancelled, since the only response that anyone seems to be interested in giving to serious concerns that "communities might be downtrodden or oppressed" by this forced Universal Code of Conduct is "B-b-but if this Code isn't forced upon every Wikimedia project, the reverse might happen!" So... what does that mean exactly? Is it the Wikimedia Foundation's contention that oppressing and/or treading down on communities is acceptable, because it will supposedly prevent certain communities from potentially oppressing and/or treading down on certain individual Wikimedians?
What kind of justification is that? Sounds suspiciously close to an argument of "two wrongs make a right" to me.
Incidentally, people are discussing this Universal Code of Conduct as if all Wikimedia projects have agreed upon it. They have not. Not even close. And that is precisely why there is criticism. Perhaps some folks have the mistaken notion that if some poobah (or poobahs) declare(s) something obligatory, then the thing in question is suddenly "agreed upon" and "has consensus". That is incorrect. Unless the communities a͟c͟t͟u͟a͟l͟l͟y͟ a͟g͟r͟e͟e͟ on acceptance of the Universal Code of Conduct, then all that it is is an arbitrary bunch of commands forced upon projects by the Wikimedia Foundation under threat of site bans, project closure, etc.
If Wikipedia (because that is what most of this is about, let us be honest here) is so far gone that it does not even care much about consensus any longer unless consensus sides with the desires of a group of ivory tower overseers, then it might be best that a totally unrelated community project that actually respects people (of numerous different views and beliefs [some strongly conflicting and at odds!], not just those of a contemporary orthodoxy) pops up and replaces it. I do not know how that would happen nowadays, given that Wikipedia is so large and influential. But if this Universal Code of Conduct is forcibly implemented Wikimedia-project-wide, and/or if the approach taken with the Universal Code of Conduct here is to be taken as a sign of how things are going to progress and how decisions are going to be made from here on in, I sincerely hope that Wikipedia loses its standing in the minds of the public, and a more worthy project replaces it. Unlikely, but it would certainly be poetic justice if it occurred.
If there is one thing that I have learnt, though, it is that me saying any of this does not matter in the slightest to the Wikimedia Foundation. That is why I have ignored the Wikimedia surveys that ask me for my opinion, and I will continue to ignore them in the future. It would be a pointless waste of time for me to fill them out. The Wikimedia Foundation does not care about me nor anyone else who disagrees with them or (some of) their decisions. It really is that simple. That is why I gave up on any attempt at serious contribution to Wikipedia years ago, and instead retreated to the Wikimedia projects that I was already contributing to that were less... stiff and uptight; projects that I actually enjoy contributing to and can contribute to comfortably without feeling like I have to walk on eggshells all of the time.
Well, I have said my piece. I know that it does not matter to you, and that my plea that you reconsider this kind of approach shall fall on deaf ears, but at least this dissent is out there publicly. That way, on the off chance that the Wikimedia projects somehow fall into the hands of those who actually respect the approaches and policies of individual Wikimedia projects, it will be there on the record that there was most certainly opposition to attempts at totalitarian-esque 'solutions' to problems that end up proving more problematic than the original problems were. Tharthan (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

UCoC as an initiative of a Movement priorityEdit

For those who have commented on the UCoC, please feel free to input at "Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Discuss/Provide for Safety and Inclusion". George Ho (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Language Fluency and skillsEdit

While I agree that our multi lingual wikis such as Meta and Wikimedia Commons need to be open for people regardless of language fluency. It is an issue on other projects. I'm always careful when I edit on a Wiki where I don't speak the language, and I don't expect to be treated the same as on a wiki where i do speak the relevant language. I'm sure we have deleted people contributions and probably also blocked people on the English language Wikipedia because either their skills or the language fluency wasn't sufficient for them to be a net positive to the project. On at least one language version of Wikipedia we have a real problem with lack of sufficiently skilled native speakers to maintain quality. The Foundation in hindsight would also have a problem complying with this language fluency policy. Most year it hosts wikimania with one or two host languages and a clear policy that only proficient speakers of a host language will qualify for scholarship grants. I agree we need to think about linguistic equity, and probably host more meetings where the required language is not the usual English. But we also need to retain the ability to require certain minimum skill levels in issues such as language when we are running projects to write encyclopaedias and other crowd sourced works. This part of the code needs to differentiate between things like gender and ethnicity where we don't allow discrimination. Things like age where we sometimes have to put a legal minimum. And things like skill level and language fluency where we do need to discriminate.

We also need to think very carefully how we handle language fluency issues that are really linguistic disputes. Several Wikipedia versions have chosen to standardise on particular versions of a language - I think Portuguese at one stage had a situation where some Wikipedians based in Portugal were unhappy with having Brazilian Portuguese as the standard for the Portuguese Wikipedia. English doesn't have this problem as we standardise spelling at the article level not the project level. But I wonder if standardising a language version of Wikipedia on one particular dialect would be considered to be secrminitaing against people who speak other dialects of that language? WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Universal Code of Conduct" page.