Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Enforcement/Wikimedia Commons community/Survey

This summary focuses on the survey conducted during the consultation. Click here to see the overall consultation summary.

Participants

Participants by gender identities.

How do you identify your gender?

Male: 64 (85.3%)

Female: 4 (5.3%)

Non-binary: 2 (2.7%)

Prefer not say: 5 (6.7%)

Do you belong to any minority groups?

Yes: 25 (33.3%)

No: 45 (57.3%)

Prefer not to say: 7 (9.3%)

Most survey participants are active on Wikimedia projects for more than 10 years.

How long have you been working on Wikimedia projects?

0–6 months: 0

6 months–2 years: 2 (2.7%)

2–5 years: 6 (8%)

5–10 years: 12 (16%)

More than 10 years: 55 (73.3%)

Is Wikimedia Commons your main project?

Yes: 45 (60%)

No: 30 (40%)

Do you have any advanced user rights in Wikimedia Commons?

Yes: 44 (58.7%)

No: 27 (36%)

Prefer not to say: 4 (5.3%)

On which Wikimedia project you actively participate in other than Wikimedia Commons?

We witnessed substantial diversity in answers to this question. The Participants are active contributors of many language communities worldwide as well as different types of wiki projects. The majority of the participants consider themselves active on English Wikipedia, Wikidata, Meta-Wiki, German Wikipedia, and Dutch Wikipedia.

Are you involved in any offline Wikimedia activities (through affiliates, etc.)?

Yes: 35 (46.7%)

No: 37 (49.3%)

Prefer not to say: 3 (4%)

Is your real-life identity disclosed on the wiki?

Yes: 35 (47.9%)

No: 38 (52.1%)

Most participants are familiar with Commons' behavioral policies and guidelines, however many are not sure.

Are you familiar with the behavioral policies and guidelines of Wikimedia Commons?

Yes: 57 (77%)

No: 2 (2.7%)

Not sure: 15 (20.3%)

Do you know where to report unacceptable behavior in the Commons?

Yes: 52 (69.3%)

No: 7 (9.3%)

Not sure: 16 (21.3%)

Harassment

More than half of the participants were harassed in their Wikimedia life

30.7% of them faced harassments in off-wiki platforms.

Have you ever been harassed or threatened on-wiki by any user?

Yes: 41 (54.7%)

No: 34 (45.3%)

Have you ever been harassed or threatened by any users with extended rights?

Yes: 29 (38.7%)

No: 46 (61.3%)

Have you ever been harassed or threatened off-wiki for your Wikimedia activities?

Yes: 23 (30.7%)

No: 52 (69.3%)

Have you ever thought about leaving the project because of harassment/threat?

Yes: 21 (28%)

No: 54 (72%)

Type of untolerated behavior that participants witnessed.

What kind of untolerated behavior have you experienced/witnessed? (please select all that apply)

Personal attacks: 54

Harassment or insult: 42

Personal information leakage / doxing: 25

Physical threats: 14

Legal threats: 25

Sexual harassment: 10

Hounding: 20

Trolling: 36

Others: 20

T&S Threat: 1

Not applicable: 1

What conduct challenges are unique to Commons?

We got the following conduct challenges mentioned by the community:

• Conduct issues regarding file copyright disputes are major conduct challenges for Commons. Excessive use of deletion request templates on user talk pages triggers the uploaders to harass or attack the person who tagged or deleted the images. Although in many cases the tags are valid and in accordance with the project policies. Aggressive behavior in deletion request discussions is also a common challenge. Commons also lacks enough active administrators compared to the number of contents that need administrators’ attention. This leads to tensions and frustrations for those who actively work to resolve such issues. This also makes them more vulnerable to become harassed. Users getting their files tagged for deletion because they tagged someone else’s images is also a common harassment trend for many users.
• Multilingual issues are unique to Commons. Commons is invisible as a separate project when the home wiki redirects them to Commons to upload free files. Sometimes the user acts without understanding Commons policies. The communication barrier is also unique to Commons. There are issues regarding the translation of policies, talk page messages that do not bear the exact tone or intention of the original messages.
• The Commons lacks ratified policies and guidelines. Therefore, many users bring and apply their home wiki policies. Many Commons administrators are from English Wikipedia and we see that a few participants stated that many users try to enforce English Wikipedia policies on Commons.
• Being an individualistic community, users in the Commons community are sparser than in Wikipedia. Therefore, they face aggregation alone.
• Misuse of administrative privileges and tools by unlawful actions and inappropriate/false warnings. The concern regarding the use of protection and the privilege of viewing deleted contents to win disputes. Also, there are concerns about contacting other admins on and off-wiki to block someone with who they are in dispute.
• Losing valuable Commons contributors because of global actions based on local issues happened on other Wikimedia projects.
• Bringing issues and disputes from other local projects.
• Commons is protective and defensive. It does not have any scope for collaborative works compared to other projects although it is changing.
• Although Commons is multilingual in theory but in practice is mostly English dominant. Without a good knowledge of English, sometimes users get marginalized
• Exploitative contents (i.e., minor/revenge porn). Due to its multilingual characteristics, enforcing copyright or asserting legal claims or threats is not always easy.

In addition, a few participants also mentioned unique content challenges like complexities regarding media management and permission for taking pictures.

Is there anything particular in UCoC that you think is not aligned or conflicting with the Commons’ current behavioral policies and guidelines?

Yes: 12 (16%)

No: 18 (24%)

Not sure: 45 (60%)

If you said yes to the previous question, kindly let us know to which policy on Commons you think conflicts with the UCoC.

Majority of the respondents think the primary reason Commons does not have much conflict with UCoC is that it lacks sufficient policies and enforcement guidelines. Some policies are also incomplete and not extensive. Due to this lacking many refer to and quote English Wikipedia policy although the scope and structure of the projects differ greatly.

Several participants believe Commons blocking policy conflicts with the UCoC. Especially the definition of harassment where the Commons policy says, " Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not harassment." UCoC policy against hounding could conflict with the current practice of tracking and tagging copyright violations. Although, this can be an act of hounding, but could be difficult to distinguish. We also see feedback that the entire "Content vandalism and abuse of the projects" section of the UCoC code conflicts greatly with Commons' project scope—a key value of Commons. According to the current policy, Commons can have contents that have an educational value which at the same time, can be offensive to someone.

Reporting harassment

Over 40% participants reported harassments at least once.

Have you reported your harassment/threat on the wiki?

Yes: 31 (41.3%)

No: 26 (34.7%)

Not applicable: 18 (24%)

If you reported your harassment, how satisfied are you with the outcome of the action taken?

Satisfied: 13 (33.3%)

Not entirely satisfied: 6 (15.4%)

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 9 (23.1%)

Not entirely dissatisfied: 1 (2.6%)

Dissatisfied: 10 (25.6%)

Almost half of the participants think it is not easy to report harassment.

Most participants are in favor of a private reporting system.

Do you think it is easy to report misconduct in the Commons?

Yes: 43 (57.3%)

No: 32 (42.7%)

Do you think it is necessary to have a private reporting system for conduct issues that cannot be reported publicly?

Yes: 63 (84%)

No: 12 (16%)

How should the reporting system be designed so that it ensures privacy and transparency?

An OTRS-like email ticketing system holds the majority's idea regarding reporting systems. To provide a less time-consuming, easily accessible, and usable reporting system, many suggested the option of a web form for reporting purposes. This could be very useful to newcomers and to those with limited wiki knowledge. Some prefer the option to report anonymously to protect privacy. We also see technical suggestions like IP masking and token assignments for increased protection. Strict visibility of the reports is a top priority to decrease the risk of privacy breaches and leaks. Therefore, most participants believe only a group of trusted and competent people who have signed confidentiality agreements should have access to the reports. The members of such a body could be selected rather than being elected through direct voting. The reports that do not need to be processed privately could be posted publicly for better transparency. To prevent misuse, we got the idea of providing diffs/evidence to unacceptable behavior mandatory.

Do you support the idea of UCoC and its enforcement?

Yes: 43 (57.3%)

No: 12 (16%)

Neutral: 20 (26.7%)

41.3% participants believes UCoC guidelines will be helpful in addition to the behavioral guidelines

Do you think current UCoC guidelines will be helpful to users in addition to the behavioral guidelines we have in Wikimedia Commons?

Yes: 31 (41.3%)

No: 15 (20%)

Not sure: 29 (38.7%)

What can UCOC enforcement learn from the Commons community—best practices, systems in place to address cases of harassment, escalation channels?

The top responses are the following.

• The project runs in simplicity and "good sense" which is some community members find better, quicker, and less complex to act than having a bureaucratic arbitration committee or many behavioral policies. Although we also have witnessed different opinions in this and the next question.
• There are too much work and too few people to do them. We see the concern of a vicious cycle where those who work actively think of themselves as inevitable for the project's functionality so they can misbehave. If they are desysoped or blocked as an enforcement measure, the project will suffer.
• Some respondents also feel there are nothing in Commons that UCoC can learn as the current conduct reporting system and enforcement mechanism do not work effectively

Is there something regarding the UCoC enforcement that you have seen on another wiki that might work on Commons?

Private channel for reporting and for feedback to the alleged users, even if they do not have their EmailUser option available or turned on.

Enforcement body

Partcipants' preferences enforcement body. Currently Commons has no elected local committee (like an Arbitration Comittee) to abitrate conduct problems

Who should enforce UCoC violations on Commons? (please select all that apply)

Administrators through AN/U: 41 (54.7%)

An elected local community (something like an Arbitration Committee): 23 (30.7%)

An elected global community (something like a global Arbitration Committee): 23 (30.7%)

Wikimedia Foundation: 16 (21.3%)

A combination of all of the above: 31 (41.3%)

If the above enforcement body you chose couldn’t resolve the issue, who you think the user should contact to find a solution?

A global committee (like OmbudsmanCommission): 18 (24%)

Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety team: 15 (20%)

Both, starting with the global committee and then Trust and Safety team: 42 (56%)

Should volunteers with enforcement responsibilities be remunerated for their service?

Yes: 17 (23%)

No: 27 (36.5%)

Neutral: 30 (40.5%)

Additional comments

Please share your additional comments on the UCoC policy or its enforcement.

Although we witness support and appreciation regarding the UCoC initiative, most respondents do not hope for much use of the current policy text due to its incoherence, possible conflicts to Commons policies, and practices/trends. Delayed enforcement is also a major concern as "Justice delayed is justice denied". Commons is a mid-sized project with large wiki problems therefore there are often delays in response and actions. Therefore, the bureaucratic arbitration process could delay the enforcement further. A few expressed fear of UCoC being used as another weapon for the WMF to oppress the community. Thus, transparency should be prioritized. The alleged person should be informed of the reason, able to present their case and defend themselves and all actions should receive fair scrutiny. There is also a strong opinion on empowering the community and suggestions for regular interaction of WMF with Commons administrators and bureaucrats.