Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee/Digests

Below is raw text from summarized comments prepared for the UCoC Drafting Committee. It reflects comments on specific wording that offer direction for revision.

Digest 1: September 7 - September 14, 2020Edit

0 - Introduction


Copy Edits

  1. context, while - doesn’t need a comma (English)
  2. It's a bit redundant to say "all in-person and virtual events, technical spaces, and all Wikimedia projects and wikis" and then try to list what "all" is. "All" means "all". Just keep it simple and allow your words to mean what they mean. (English)


Word Changes

  1. Semi Public - either one word or hyphenated
  2. (Question- So private abuse, say in wikimail or direct-messages on a WM-hosted chat platform, is okay?).

Suggestion - include ‘one-to-one communication’ (English)

  1. This includes: The first "this includes" refers to the previous sentence "it applies to everyone" and makes sense. The second "this includes" that introduces the bullet list refers to places not people, and made me think "huh?" Suggest "The scope includes:" or "The UCoC applies to the following situations:" or something similar. (English)
    1. Similar sentiments from (Italian)


Phrase Changes

  1. baseline of acceptable and unacceptable behavior -  think you mean "expected and unacceptable". Civility, collegiality, solidarity are expected, not merely accepted. (English)
  2. The UCoC provides a baseline of behavior for collaboration on Wikimedia projects worldwide. Communities may add to this to develop policies that take account of local and cultural context, while maintaining the baselines listed here as a minimum standard. (English)
  3. It seems that there are three different categories? Acceptable, Expected, or Unacceptable? (English)
  4. In the final section of the introduction on the cultural and local context, there should be more explicitly the standard of respect for human rights and people's rights of citizenship (Spanish)


Context Changes

  1. There is talk of a "minimum standard". But this concept is based on an ideal image. That clashes with each other. This code of conduct expects "respect, politeness, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship", responsibility, empathy, constructiveness, positivity, friendliness, "concrete, measurable strategies for improvement", well-being, "mentoring and coaching", "recognition and appreciation" and more. As an ideal, this is wonderful, but if this becomes a minimum standard, then we all fail. - (Dutch)


Questions

  1. What is the background for adding “issues of technical development”? (German)
  2. What if something goes wrong? Or someone fails to comply? - The question touches on the point that Wiki projects have the culture of tolerance and forgiveness. Would that also get affected? (Dutch)


Critical comment

  1. It should be shortened (Italian)


1. Why We Have a UCOC


Copy Edits

  1. Avoid Unnecessary Capitals if Possible (This Includes Abbreviations Like UCoC) -  Correct everywhere, including the talk page.  (English)
  2. Change ‘Acting in contradiction with’ -> Acting in contradiction to (English)
  3. ‘the local communities endorsement’ -> Should be possessive: the local communities' endorsement. (English)
  4. Poorly bracketed text - (as per the local communities endorsement and contextualisation)" could mean everything or nothing. Parenthesized phrase seems to imply that local groups can choose to endorse or not to endorse the UCoC (English)


Word Changes

  1. Define 'we'. Who is 'we'? If necessary, use 'we' only in this paragraph, but consider renaming this paragraph to something like "The purpose of this UCoC" and consider avoiding the personal pronouns entirely. If you use 'we', make sure that is clear who is meant by that (it is not clear in the current draft). (English)
  2. Ambiguous use of ‘we’ have been pointed in other sections too. (English)
  3. Redundancy in use of words ‘engage’ and ‘participate’ - To "engage in" is to take part in an activity, to be a participant, so there's no need to say that twice.  (English)


Phrase Changes

  1. Change ‘owner of the platform’ to ‘operator and service provider of the platforms’ as the community are the real owners of the platform (German) (Dutch)
  2. ‘For anyone who joins’ -change to  "for anyone who joins them and wants to join them”. It is also about involving people who may already feel excluded or exclude themselves from the community, through the behavior of that community.  (Dutch)
  3. "UCoC applies equally to all Wikimedia members without exception." > UCoC applies equally to all Wikimedia members (those working in Wikimedia projects) without exception. (Finnish)


Critical comment

  1. ‘Acting in contradiction with the UCOC can result in sanctions being imposed by ... the Wikimedia Foundation as the legal owner of the platforms.’ is much too vague and can lead to blocking without due process. (German)
  2. It’d be a good idea to make it clear early on that we are neither a public space nor a free state. This "right to contribute no matter how I behave" is often a point of discussion in open projects, especially in projects with the openness and scale of Wikimedia projects. What we do is 'for the Commons, it is not the Commons itself'. (Dutch)
  3. Too long, could be removed altogether (Italian)
  4. Could go before the first section (Italian)
  5. Could point/link to a higher level document, e.g. mission statement or strategy recommendation (Italian)


2. Expected Behavior

Copy Edits

  1. Nor will we distinguish based on- Shouldn't we be distinguishing -between- two things? (English)


Word Changes

  1. duplication of "contributors and participants" - This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants sounds awkward. (English)
  2. Use of the term ‘Wikimedian’. Some editors do not identify with the movement, but see themselves as ‘Wikipedians’. (German)
  3. The word ‘sex’ is missing from the list, it is not the same as gender identity (Spanish)

Phrase Changes

  1. Distinguishing based on accomplishments, skills or standing - As per users, the intent of this phrase is clear, but the wording is not. Thus, it’s prone to misinterpretation.

Suggestion - “We will treat everyone with respect, regardless of their accomplishments, skills or standing in the Wikimedia-projects or movement” (English)

  1. List of desired behaviours could be sorted in a way that makes more sense, putting related issues next to each other, political orientation is missing (Italian)


Context Change

  1. As per some users this entire section gives an impression that WMF is trying to tell users how they are supposed to think and feel. And saying so is outside WMF’s remit.     Suggestion - segregate minimum standards and best practices. Would be useful to one revisit the discussion here.  (English)
  2. UCoC in this definition only applies to interactions between Wikimedians, what about Wikimedians interacting with third parties? (English)


Critical comment

  1. Introduction to the section could be shortened or cut out (Italian)


2.1 - Respect

Copy Edits

  1. ‘When meeting in person’ - redundant (English)
  2. People who identify as having a particular physical or mental disability - ‘who identify as’ can be removed as it can create issues wrt self-identification. (English)


Word Changes

  1. Respect - "Respect me" can mean "treat me as your equal," but it can also mean "treat me as your superior." Thus, less emphasis should be paid on this word. (English)
  2. concrete, measurable strategies - unclear what does it imply. Also project management style writing. (English)
  3. engage in constructive, positive editing - Some editing is by necessity destructive; removing a statement is sometimes required. Deleting an article is also destructive, but sometimes necessary. Pointing out that a statement is wrong or unverifiable is "negative". It would be better to say "Your contributions should improve the quality of the project". (English)
  4. Gender identity should be specifically mentioned in this section (Spanish)


Phrase Changes

  1. Practice Empathy - Coming across as too much of a ask for some editors who only do Copy edits and do not want to engage more. Should be renamed from "Practice empathy" to "Listen and be open" (English)
  2. Always assume good faith  - Assume good faith is a very important rule guideline but the “always” part is problematic. At some point AGF is no longer warranted and actions must be taken to protect the project or other users. Maybe the wording should be changed here slightly? ( four users support striking the word ‘always’.)
  1. The English Wikinews explicitly does not have an "assume good faith" guideline. In fact, it has a guideline that says, never assume. -> Not suggesting to use ‘never assume’ but something better. (English)
  1. Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves- This is a huge problem, and why enwiki removed honorifics in article space. To explain why, suppose I say that my name is 107.242.121.53, M.D., and I am an expert in Glaswegian homeopathy. That clearly shouldn't go without scrutiny.
  • I find this point problematic because of the differences in languages; and again: how universal and firm should this rule be? If someone wants to be addressed as Jedi Master, will I be banned if I don't comply? (English)
  • Similar concerns were brought in at Dutch and German talk page as well.
  • Similar concerns from the Spanish talk page, especially in regards to US citizens referring to themselves as ‘Americans’


Context Change

  1. Some users point out that Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves cannot be universal because many languages do not have gender neutral pronouns. And imposing it on every single Wikipedia out there would imply a lack of respect for other cultures and could even be said to have colonialist overtones.

Ex. In Germany de:Otto Fucker might be a normal name. In other countries this name might be insulting. There are also people who don't take their normal name and directly look for some insulting names. For example, if someone took the name "Eulenspiegel1 is an asshole", I would never write the name of this account in my answer. (English)

  1. As per some users, language specific issues should be kept out of UCoC (English)


Critical comment

  1. The list of examples is going too far. E.g. not using signs that are not on your keyboard does not necessarily mean a lack of respect. Also asking to be treated differently than everyone else can also be a way to show a lack of respect to the community. (German)
  2. The examples under ‘Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves’ are not easy to understand for non-anglocentric readers/are US-American centric and may not be applicable for all languages (e.g. gender neutral pronouns) or in the Wikimedia context. The list is too specific to be universal. (Italian)
  3. Overlaps of this point with the next (Italian)

2.2 - Civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship Copy Edits

Word Changes

  1. A high standard of politeness - Politeness is important, but what level does ‘high’ standard imply?  (English)
  2. Solidarity - This is a confusing and superfluous word to use. It comes with historical baggage and may be used like "brotherhood" or an indication that Wikimedians are of the same political class. It comes with the imagery of group religion, group think, even radicalization, to the extent that to be seen to be in solidarity you can expect to be under peer pressure to raise your virtual fist to show support with your brothers. (English)
  3. Citizenship - Very American. The term of "citizenship" implies a set of responsibilities I am legally enforced to perform, actions I must do; I am not forced to make any of my contributions to any of the projects.
    1. What is meant by "solidarity"? And by "good citizenship"? - (French)

Phrase Changes

  1. All the rules listed under ‘This includes but is not limited to’ should be desirable behavior but should not be enforced. Ex. people cannot be banned for not mentoring anyone or not thanking others for their contribution. It is easy to mandate civility, but respect, empathy, and solidarity?
    1. Mandating the given definitions of empathy and solidarity could honestly put anyone and everyone in violation of this thing. Same goes for respect. (English)

Critical comment

  1. It seems off to have four things in the title and three examples. (Italian)


3. Unacceptable behavior

Copy Edits

Word Changes

Phrase Changes


3.1 Harassment


Copy Edits

  1. Stalking - The project - > Change to projects (English)


Word Changes

  1. Designed - Consider Intended? There are arguments both in support and opposition of the word ‘Designed’.  (English)
  2. Religion - Many modern CoCs, use the term "religion or lack thereof" instead of "religion". I think having it here and making it explicit would be useful (given the discrimination against non-believers in lots of places) (English)
  3. Unsolicited - The word "unsolicited" is not acceptable, because it would make any attempt of beginning a relationship by single people— or, in many cases, mere courtesy — punishable!
  1. Replace "unsollicited" and similar terms with something that is closer to "known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome and unrelated to improving the project" (this could obviously be worded better). It does two things; it adds some objectivity and reasonableness to the text and it allows for critical commentary that improves a user's contribution, unwelcome as such comments or reverts may be. (English)
  1. Legal action - It's not universal enough. I blocked users in de-wiki for threatening legal actions, but in a UCoC we should appreciate that some of us even have the possibility of legal actions. They are prefered to "illegal actions". (English)
  2. Stalking - In English Wikipedia this term is deprecated. Consider replacing with ‘Hounding’. Definition in the document leaves room for misinterpretation. (English)
    1. what is defined here is "harassment", not stalking, which means only observing or waiting hidden, hidden, it does not imply any action against anyone (Spanish)
  3. ‘In some cases’ - It says that "[i]n some cases ... repeated ... sarcasm ... may qualify as [an] insult[] collectively". Which definitely is a vague statement, granted, but it doesn't mean a ban on repeated sarcasm -- just on some particular uses of sarcasm. (English)
  4. ‘Race’ - Germany is currently discussing to delete the word from its constitution, as the use of it is part of a colonialist and racist attitude that arranges people in hierarchies that are rooted in biologically false categories. A universal Code of Conduct should not include this word. (German)
    1. The terms "race" and "ethnicity" are not universal, they are not globally used in the same way in 2020. They are problematic terms. Since this code of conduct is meant to be "universal", remove "race" and "ethnicity" and add: "no form of racism directed against any social group is tolerated". (French)
    2. The use of the term ‘race’ is US-centric, ethnic origin should be enough (Italian)
  5. The bullet ‘Doxing’ should be called ‘Disclosure of personal data (doxing)’ (Spanish)


Phrase Changes

  1. sexual attention or advances of any kind - Change to "sexual attention or sexual advances" or "sexual attention/advances". Also add “against their wish’ to the sentence. Or "unwanted" in the beginning (English)
    1. I think the language used, for example, in the point about sexual harassment is bad. I don't think it is clear enough what is "unsolicited sexual attention" or even "unsolicited sexual advances", especially by the qualifier "of any kind". (Brazilian Portugese)
    2. Clarify the advances mentioned are sexual advances (Italian)
  2. “reputational harm to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want” - Don’t understand why "reputational harm" was included, or the stated end goal of having an editor "behave the way you want". This could be applied to literally thousands of cases. If I am threatening an editor with a block if they continue to do a certain negative action, I am threatening, among other things, reputational harm in an effort to have them behave the way I (and the community) want. (English)
  3. following a person across the project and repeatedly critiquing their work with the intent to upset or discourage them - This is written without any understanding of what an admin's job looks like. If this gets in the final draft, it will doubtlessly be used as an excuse by every wikilawyering troll whose every edit has to be fixed or reverted by unthanked admins. (English)
  4. Encouraging harm to oneself- No conclusive discussion on this phrase, but this has caught a lot of attention. (English)
  5. Suggestion to take the phrase from the Italian page about harassments: ‘Threats to cause negative consequences of any kind outside of Wikipedia are considered harassment, and therefore prohibited, such as physical actions, legal or interference in work or private life’ (Italian)
  6. Doxxing - not publishing any information not published onwiki should be minimum standard (Italian)
  7. Insults - ‘Sex’ is missing in the list of protected categories (Spanish)


Context Changes

  1. The language used under ‘Threats’ is very generic and can have the opposite effect. "Raising the possibility of legal action to force someone to behave the way they want" is a legitimate form of defense against someone who, for example, is committing a serious injustice or even a crime. If the code of conduct intends to avoid using legal threats to censor or unfairly embarrass people, let it be said only in that specific way and avoid generic expressions like "force yourself to behave". - (Brazilian Portugese)


Questions

  1. What is meant by the term ‘reasonable’ here? Reasonable for whom? (Spanish)
  2. How do we measure vulnerability? (Spanish)
  3. Stalking - How can the intent of a person be known or determined? (Spanish)


Critical comment

  1. "Doxxing" is the only point where we talk about the different sensitivities of the various communities. In a universal CoC this is not appropriate. (Italian)


3.2       Abuse of Power, Privilege, or Influence


Copy Edits

  1. emotional abuse (verbal, mental, psychological abuse) - We don't need to specify cognitive, mental, emotional, verbal, perceptual. Just say emotional or psychological. Pick one. Those are the correct terms and they are essentially interchangeable. (English)
  2. (alone or in a group) - Redundant. The code is universal. This doesn’t need to be specified. (English)


Word Changes

Phrase Changes

  1. The part about abuse of power by staff is phrased in a way that the worst forms of abuse will not be sanctioned. ‘to intimidate or threaten others, or for their own material or immaterial benefit.’ does not take into account the amount of damage caused. As no one can read minds, it will be impossible to prove staff did actions with bad intentions or for their own gain. (German)
  2. In Wikimedia environments it most frequently takes the form of emotional abuse - "In Wikimedia environments it [abuse] most frequently takes the form of etc." – this wording expresses the ongoing and continuous abuse as a fact. In other words, as long as the UCoC is valid, it states the presence of abuse as a matter of fact, not of possibility. In a way it invokes the abuse. This can not (should not) be the intention of a UCoC, more careful wording seems wanted ("In Wikimedia environments most likely it might take the form of etc. etc."?)  (English)
  3. Gaslighting - The use of the word Gaslighting and its definition is not clear to many language communities. It has translation issues, contextual issues and cultural issues.  (English)
    1. Definition needs to be more nuanced. (Dutch) (Czech) (Persian) (Russian)
  4. Gaslighting - it is an essential part of education to change the perceptions and understanding of the world of others through discussions. Bringing knowledge and information will change those things and this is the goal of an encyclopedia. (German)
  5. Gaslighting - it is unclear what is meant with the term ‘community authority’ here (Italian)


Questions

  1. How do you define the word ‘person’ in the context of stalking? Especially considering paid edit accounts? (German)
  2. What kind of action will be allowed for administrators when dealing with vandals? E.g. warning vandalizing students about informing their school principal? (Italian)


3.3 Content vandalism and abuse of the projects

Copy Edits

Word Changes

Phrase Changes

  1. the unwarranted, unjustified addition of symbols, images, or content with the intent to intimidate or harm others - How shall WMF determine "intent" in this manner?

The swastika is a good example to think about. That symbol has a long history before Nazi usage, in multiple cultures, with a variety meanings. Consider the user page for a Navajo, Hindu, or Jain Wikimedian on Meta or Commons (clearly inter-cultural spaces), whose cultures have positive connotations of that symbol. How should we deal with a Jewish and/or gay Wikimedian going to that page, and being traumatized, because their community's association of the symbol with Nazism?  (English)

  1. "Deliberately introducing incorrect or biased content" -- properly defining on a global level which content is truly "incorrect and biased" might be extremely hard, especially given that RS in English and local languages might have, umgh, opposite views on what is incorrect and what is biased due to differences in cultural background.  (English)
    1. It would be wise to completely remove these misguided attempts at the regulation of speech from here and leave the enforcing of the content rules entirely to the individual projects, where the staffing is way better and the editorial independence is at least plausible. - (Russian)
  2. "This includes, but is not limited to, the intentional introduction of false or biased content into Wikimedia projects or the prevention of content creation." > This includes, but is not limited to, preventing the importation of intentional (or, alternatively, intentional or negligent) false or biased content. (Finnish)
  3. Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations - If we want to avoid hate speech and systematically manipulating content sometimes, is necessary. (Czech)
  4. "Repeated removal of Wikimedia content without appropriate peer review or constructive feedback for improvement" - there can be legitimate reasons for this, summarised in the en-wp essay en:WP:DOLT, which cross-references a speech given by Jimmy Wales in 2006 (English)
  5. Undisclosed paid editing? - This section should be in UcoC (English)
  6. Manipulation of sources is missing (Italian)
  7. List of reasons for discrimination that is forbidden is different than on other places in the UCoC (Italian)
    1. ‘Sex’ as protected category is again missing (Spanish)
  8. There is hate speech against an individual (Italian)


Other Comments

  1. Many users in multiple languages have said that this document needs to make a distinction between actions that are ‘mandatory’ and actions that are ‘encouraged’. There’s a lack of clarity between these two expectations in many sections. For example: Is ‘mentorship and coaching’ mandatory or encouraged?  (English)
  2. The scope of application of UCoC is not very clear. Ex: Is IRC, OTRS, MediaWiki-facilitated email, etc., considered to be an area in which the UCoC applies? The definition of "technical spaces" and "in-person and virtual events" is not given, and the list given after it only further confuses the message. Does this apply only to WMF-sanctioned technical spaces, and if so does this override their existing codes of conduct? And what is the line regarding "public and semi public interactions"? One to one email conversations included?  (English)
  3. Use of the tenses is confusing, translation can further add to confusion. Especially using the future as in ‘behavior will be’, this seems to point to a moment in time not yet here. (German)

Suggestion- Preparing a side document going into the details of the scope which could be referenced in the introductory text

  1. The word ‘intent’ is used multiple times and can be problematic. We should avoid the implication of mind reading, especially in the context of online semi-anonymous text-based communities. Where the rubber meets the road, no one cares about intent. If someone is being harassing then it is not particularly important if they intend to harass. The use of intent itself can easily run counter to AGF, which requires we assume intent already.  (English)
  2. Numbering of the sections should start with 1 and not 0  (English)
  3. Use of the word ‘minimum’ standard - minimum" appears to assume that we're dealing with a totally ordered set. Please include the definition of the ordering function, or remove the word "minimum" as suggested above.  (English)
  4. Admins should be allowed to tell people to leave Wiki is their writing consistently fail to match the standards.  (English)
  5. There’s nothing about conflict resolution or de-escalation in the document.  (English)
  6. Bullying is not covered anywhere.  (English)
  7. Some guidance on how reports will be handled is missing, especially in the light of possible reports made as harassment (German)
  8. This code of conduct has too general typifications - which is different from having general principles. A code of conduct should cover clear abuses and foster a climate of respect, not a list of generic typifications to instill embarrassment through uncertainty and fear. (Brazilian Portuguese)
  9. One of the risks, if it is not well written, is that the Code could be misused by people with unacceptable behaviour who would misuse it. Once the barrier of supposed good faith has been passed, there is indeed a finding of bad faith. And this is where things get complicated. In questionable cases of conflict, a decision tree should be used to accurately verify who is in actual violation of the Code because the attacker can use the social leverage of the Code to turn it against an individual, especially someone in a position whose performance (no one likes to be re-framed) can generate a lot of discontent and frustration within a group and create a breeding ground for malevolence. (French)
  10. The policy will have to be amended to bring in various minimum age legislation. Should there be an age limit to rum for an Admin, ArbCom Member etc.? And if someone underage does so and face discrimination, how does that apply? We could amend this to say we will not discriminate on grounds of age among those who are legal adults.  (English)
  11. How would this policy take into account people’s changing mental ability with age?  (English)


Digest 2: September 14 - September 21, 2020Edit

0 - Introduction

Word Changes

  1. In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events behavior will be founded' the term 'spaces' is vague and can include anything. (English)
  2. A contributor is a subtype of participant. (English)

Critical comments

  1. A preamble is missing that would mention e.g. the declaration of Human Rights by the UN as guiding principle. This could also help with conflicts between different wikis. (German)


1 - Why We Have a UCOC

Copy Edits

  1. Poorly bracketed text - (as per the local communities endorsement and contextualisation)" could mean everything or nothing. Parenthesized phrase seems to imply that local groups can choose to endorse or not to endorse the UCoC (English)

Word Changes

  1. Define 'we'. Who is 'we'? If necessary, use 'we' only in this paragraph, but consider renaming this paragraph to something like "The purpose of this UCoC" and consider avoiding the personal pronouns entirely. If you use 'we', make sure that is clear who is meant by that (it is not clear in the current draft). (English)
  2. Ambiguous use of ‘we’ have been pointed in other sections too. (English)
  3. Redundancy in use of words ‘engage’ and ‘participate’ - To "engage in" is to take part in an activity, to be a participant, so there's no need to say that twice. (English)

Phrase Changes

  1. Change ‘owner of the platform’ to ‘operator and service provider of the platforms’ as the community are the real owners of the platform (German) (Dutch)
  2. “they strive towards accuracy and verifiability of all their works” is pushing users towards unrealistic perfection. (Polish)

Critical comments

  1. Acting in contradiction with the UCOC can result in sanctions being imposed by ... the Wikimedia Foundation as the legal owner of the platforms.’ is much too vague and can lead to blocking without due process. (German)
  2. Should we have a “see proposed actions” link here? So that people know that the sanctions will still be described in full later in the document? It’d be a good idea to make it clear early on that we are neither a public space nor a free state. This "right to contribute no matter how I behave" is often a point of discussion in open projects, especially in projects with the openness and scale of Wikimedia projects. What we do is 'for the Commons, it is not the Commons itself'. (Dutch)
  3. Could go before the first section (Italian)
  4. After reading the flow, I personally agree that this section sets the tone in a better way than the introduction. “Starting with why” makSugfes it easier for a reader to buy into the “what” Could point/link to a higher level document, e.g. mission statement or strategy recommendation (Italian)
  5. It’s a poorly explained section that does not stress enough on why do we need a UCoC. (English)


2 - Expected Behavior

Copy Edits

  1. Why is "sexual orientation" etc singular but "gender identities" plural? Shouldn't it be "gender identity", singular, for consistency? (English)

Word Changes

  1. In software engineering we have a concept called DRY ("Don't repeat yourself"). This CoC is clearly suffering from this. Search for "sexual orientation" and you find it in three places, most CoCs have the list of protected identities in one place in case it needs updating, I have no idea how to fix it here though. (English)
  2. The term "mental handicap" is often assimilated to "mental retardation", but above all it covers only deficits linked to psychological and / or neurological conditions / affections. It is therefore unsuitable for many conditions and cases (autism, bipolarity, schizophrenia, etc.) which represent a significant% of the population. Many psychic peculiarities do not necessarily translate into a disability. "Of physical, mental, psychological conditions, including handicap" would already seem to me to be a more suitable formulation. (French)


2.1 - Respect

Phrase Changes

  1. “will treat them with the same respect as we would want them to show to us”--> This statement can be interpreted as an expression from an ideal world assuming all people have the same underlying well behavior. This is not shared by everyone in reality. I suggest something as "we will treat them respectfully". (English)
  2. Practice Empathy -> The practice of empathy is in the realm of personality and beyond a practical guidance on how to behave.Additionally, I see the imperative form of "Practice empathy" problematic in general. (English)
  3. Sexual orientation seems misplaced in this list, we usually do not refer to people by their sexual orientation. (Italian)
  4. Respect is a feeling, not a behaviour, you cannot tell people to feel respect for one another. It would be better to ask them to show consideration, as this is a behaviour. (German)


2.2 - Civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship

Phrase Changes

  1. All the rules listed under ‘This includes but is not limited to’ should be desirable behavior but should not be enforced. Ex. people cannot be banned for not mentoring anyone or not thanking others for their contribution. It is easy to mandate civility, but respect, empathy, and solidarity?
  2. Mandating the given definitions of empathy and solidarity could honestly put anyone and everyone in violation of this thing. Same goes for respect. (English)

Critical comments

  1. The bolding is too aggressive, and the hierarchical bullet points are too formal (English)


3 - Unacceptable behavior

3.1 - Harassment

Word Changes

  1. Doxing - Isn't this a little informal? Wouldn't something like "outing" be a better word, or something different? Of course, we shouldn't sacrifice formality for accuracy, but I think it is worth mentioning.

Phrase Changes

  1. The text at present explicitly denotes that it is acceptable to solicit sexual attention. So the double standard is between people who solicit sexual attention and people who give sexual attention. (English)
  2. Change “Using the possibility of physical violence, legal action, unfair embarrassment, or reputational harm to win...” to “Using the possibility of physical violence, legal action, reputational harm or other unfair behaviours to win.. “ (German)


3.2 - Abuse of Power, Privilege, or Influence

Copy Edits

  1. What does "misuse of authorities" mean in this context? (If a project functionary SWATs someone?) Was this meant to say "misuse of authority"? (English)


3.3 - Content vandalism and abuse of the projects

Word Changes

  1. "systematically" is not helpful because a single contribution, not based on facts or without acceptable supporting literature will already be rated as improper. Therefore, "Repeatedly" might be a better word catching the case of a contributor resistant to learning. Secondly, "manipulating" is here a prejudgment and I suggest e.g. "changing" as a neutral word. Because, thirdly, authors do favour specific interpretations and to have different views is helpful. Conflicts can rise e.g. in denial of facts, other views, or interpretations. Therefore, I suggest "exclusively favour", "extremely favour" or similar. (English)
  2. I would use "personal beliefs". (English)

Phrase Changes

  1. The concept of WP:Cycle (en.WP) could be introduced here (Polish)
  2. 3.3's current wording is utterly disastrous and should not be implemented under any circumstances. It will be construed by truthers and conspiracy theorists. They will understand it as a licence to remove the mainstream academic consensus (because, we will be told, all the mainstream media are "incorrect or biased"); and a licence to prevent us removing their conspiracy theory (because that's "removal of Wikimedia content without appropriate peer review").The nuanced wording from each project's content inclusion policies, such as WP:V and WP:BLP on en.wiki, was developed over many years in the light of a lot of hard experience, and it is incredibly unwise to replace it with a draft rule that has, with all due respect, clearly been written by someone who's never been in a content dispute on a wiki. (English)
  3. The broad language of vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against can be easily abused in dispute resolution cases to stifle open discussion of controversial ideas, as many Wikimedians who have tried to deal with repressive governments can testify. I propose changing this to Hate speech in any form of expression which intends to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred dehumanize and incite violence against a group or a class of persons... which is much more specific and enforceable.

Context

  1. Introducing biased content has to be viewed differently across different projects. E.g. someone might decide to upload a series of historical texts that can be considered racist to Wikisource, which are fully in scope of the project. (Czech)


Broader Comments

  1. The draft is long. The consequence of the lengthy draft is that it places a huge burden on hundreds of small language communities in translating this text. Those translation costs can be reduced by 80% by adopting for the text of the Contributor Covenant. Less is more. (English)
  2. I personally find this document to be far, far too long. Codes of conduct should be short with only the absolutely most important points. They shouldn't duplicate other documents. If we want the UCOC to be followed, it needs to be simple and straightforward; I wouldn't in any way categorize the current draft as either. It absolutely shouldn't be longer; I'd advocate for making it half the length. (English)
  3. Cultural Sensitivity proposal - I'm surprised that there is no mention of being kind and acknowledging cultural differences beyond self-description. I propose to add the following bullet-point to the "Respect" section: Acknowledge cultural differences. Words, idiomatic expressions, humour, gestures, and body language that are normal in one culture may happen to be considered offensive in another culture, both between different cultures in the same language community, and between different languages. Assume good faith when you perceive offence and make effort to communicate your cultural sensitivities. Conversely, accommodate other Wikimedians' cultural taboos when they are pointed out to you. (English)
  4. The current draft code does not cover events organized by Wikimedia affiliates, nor online spaces hosted by affiliates. For a claim of the code to be universal, the code should be explicitly applicable to affiliate spaces as well. There are signals to the contrary. (English)
  5. Judgemental language - in several definitions (e.g. trolling and stalking) the intention of the perpetrator is included. This is problematic, as the intention of people is not visible. Judgemental language is always problematic in legal texts (this can be considered to be one) (German)
  6. A thank you to the drafting committee (English, Bengali)
  7. The way reverts can be annoying to newcomers should be mentioned (Czech)
  8. The lists of what to not discriminate against are confusing, as they differ from section to section. (Italian)

Broader Questions

  1. What is the relationship between the Terms of Use and the UCoC? Does one trump the other if and when a situation arises that violates one but not the other? There is some overlap in content, which I recommend we avoid. It is often difficult for large organizations and their communities to remember to update one when the other is updated, which leads to inconsistent policy. (English)


Digest 3: September 21 - September 28, 2020Edit

0 - Introduction

Word Changes

  1. A contributor is a subtype of participant. (English)

Context Changes

  1. Strange, in general, what is meant by public and semi-public. It is understood that mailing lists, wikis and other free access collaboration spaces (without username and password) are public, and spaces that have an access password (specific wikis and specialized mailing lists) are governed by these rules. However, I don't see how this space differs concretely in Wikimedia projects. Likewise, does this concept also encompass other social networks or meeting spaces? For example, FB groups that are not controlled by the WMF or associated user groups. I think it is important, at the time of contribution and criticism, to know where this limitation is. (Spanish)


1 - Why We Have a UCOC

Word Changes

  1. The use of the opening 'we' is unclear and needs to be explained (German)


2 - Expected Behavior

Word Changes

  1. +1 more to drop solidarity. It works when everyone's goal is the same in the broader sense, but not for a code of conduct that applies to the editing domain. It might be misconstrued during article discussions when there are conflicting views relative to content and achieving NPOV - we don't want the "solidarity card" being pulled on us to warrant a block or t-ban. We want free thinkers, civil/collegial discussion but not group thinkers of like mind (solidarity) when trying to achieve neutrality in our articles. It simply doesn't fit. Civility and collegiality work well, and don't conflict with a healthy editing environment. (English)

2.1 Respect

Phrase Changes

  1. Consider just putting "respect each other". (English)
  2. Respect is a feeling, not a behaviour, you cannot tell people to feel respect for one another. It would be better to ask them to show consideration, as this is a behaviour. (German)
  3. Ukrainian (like most Slavic languages) uses a lot of gendered words, so if I am speaking of some user I tend to check their gender first. Many people don't do it and assume a person with a gender-neutral username is a man. This is what UCOC should address in Ukrainian context. (English)

Context Change

  1. Reasons AGF is detrimental to any wiki:
    1. If "assume good faith" is taken at face value, it is telling contributors to assume something. It is destructive to the mission of an information-providing wiki to teach contributors to assume things.
    2. If "assume good faith" is not taken literally (see w:WP:ZEN), it teaches contributors by example to say things they don't mean. This too is destructive to the mission of an information-providing wiki.
    3. Troublemakers benefit from AGF. Bad behavior can be done in good faith, but those doing it can wield AGF as a weapon against those who are provoked by the bad behavior. (English)


2.2 Civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship


3 - Unacceptable behavior

3.1 Harassment

Phrase Changes

  1. Qualify it as "unwanted sexual advances" and drop "of any kind" - iow, the recipient has asked for it to stop and the donor refuses/repeats the behavior - then it becomes unwanted. We joke around all the time to relieve tension, and it's just wrong if banter among a small group of adults or between two adults ends up causing an admin action. I've also seen innocent TP watching be misconstrued as "stalking" so let's be careful here. I've had both and can easily spot the difference.
    1. +1 we should be careful with the language here because there are many Wiki couples who have met each other through their association with the movement, including members of the board and staff. (English)
  2. Change “Using the possibility of physical violence, legal action, unfair embarrassment, or reputational harm to win...” to “Using the possibility of physical violence, legal action, reputational harm or other unfair behaviours to win.. “ (German)
  3. It is important to not make the problems of racism invisible by not using race as a source of possible discrimination (German)

Critical comments

  1. Discussion about Stalking: Are there circumstances when following and discouraging a user gently from further editing the projects would be appropriate? One user arguing yes, if they do not seem to be interested or able to make constructive edits. This person asks for more clarification and a differentiated description of when it might be appropriate. One user arguing strongly against it, calling out the negative impact it has had on themselves and users they know in the past and calling out any forms of allowing as rife for misuse. (German)

3.2 Abuse of Power, Privilege, or Influence

Phrase Changes

  1. Someone had added mobbing to the section in the published draft. It was reverted, added back and reverted again. (English)

3.3 Content vandalism and abuse of the projects

Critical Comments

  1. Add "self-promotion or advertising" as another type of vandalism. Some limit their contribution in any type of page to this. (French)


Broader Comments

  1. We should mention in the UCOC introduction that this document is supplementary to the TOU. The current UCOC draft doesn't refer to the TOU at all. (English)
  2. The relationship between registered and unregistered users remains, as far as I noticed, absent from the present draft: is this something we should address? A difference is explicitly made to differentiate "new" and "experienced" editors; yet, the "new"-editor category conflates registered and unregistered users. The relationship between experienced registered users and new registered users is to me less conflictive than the relationship between experienced registered users and new unregistered users. My sense is that we should welcome unregistered editors and rely on this universal CC to guarantee that unregistered editors are clearly stated as part of our ecosystem, in the sense that our projects are free for everyone to edit. (English)
  3. A preamble is missing that would mention e.g. the declaration of Human Rights by the UN as guiding principle. This could also help with conflicts between different wikis. (German)

Digest 3: September 28 - October 08, 2020Edit

0 – Introduction

1 - Why We Have a UCOC

2 - Expected Behavior

Word Changes

  1. I object to undefined "good citizenship". (English)
    1. a.Similar conversation as previous

Phrase Changes

  1. I would propose to change some words here: This applies to all any contributors and or participants in their interactions with all other contributors and participants. Reasoning: all-all is a bit too severe and statistically impossible. Not everybody interacts with all and everybody else of the community. I would prefer some mathematical/statistical/logical/algorithmic reasoning. (English)

Critical comments

  1. Expected behaviour is problematic as a category. There are things that are not violating things listed under section 3, but fall short of things spelled out here, e.g. “If I assume the bad will of a given user and say this in such a tone, without breaking any of the provisions of point three, have I violated the UCoC provisions?” This creates a legal limbo, where it is not fully known whether the behavior from a "gray zone" is allowed or not. (Polish)

2.1 Respect

Word Changes

  1. Does “particular physical or mental disorder” also include autism? It is a neurodevelopmental disorder which is currently characterized by mainly social symptoms. Does this mean that none of the terms of the proposal cover this kind of condition? (English)
  2. As an extension of this remark, the many dysfunctions such as dyslexia, dysorthography, etc. should also be taken into account. who are not mentally handicapped (the term "disorder" is generally used). Among these, and in particular due to the fact that wikimedia editorial projects are published and built primarily at the start of written communication, dysorthography can be the subject of stigmatization and the disorder pointed out by an interlocutor or protagonist in the purpose of discrediting the affected person. (French)

Phrase Changes

  1. Add- As long as it is possible in your language. (English)
  2. +1 to adding ‘Respect each other’. Abusing "respect" to establish authority IS an issue both in the WMF and the projects. (English)

2.2 Civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship


3 - Unacceptable behavior

3.1 Harassment

Word Changes

  1. Add ‘repeated behavior’ - Harassment is usually defined as a pattern of repeated negative behaviours (bullying, verbal abuse, etc.). If we leave out the repeat aspect, we will end up with a Code that is out of step with expectations within the communities and society more widely. (English)
  2. I worry about this clause. I believe a distinction needs to be made for the use–mention distinction. While I understand that this can be abused, it is sometimes necessary or unavoidable, when discussing slurs as a subject of an article, to at times mention them. I would add "using slurs or stereotypes as insults, or mentioning them without care (English)
  3. The word qualify as is unclear in this context (Japanese)

Phrase Changes

  1. given the cultural context and expectations of the people involved)" - this seems unacceptably vague. For example, person A claims that calling someone word W is perfectly acceptable in their cultural context, while person B says in their cultural context it is a deadly insult. Who meets the reasonableness test? If we call in person C, an admin, for example, then no matter how C rules, at least one of A or B will say that since C isn't part of their cultural context, C can't make a valid judgment. (English)
  2. “Any attacks based on .. political affiliation” is a problematic phrase. Criticism of editors violating our rules regarding a neutral point of view who are working with a strong bias for extremist political views or who are promoting views too aligned with the government in some countries must remain possible and should not be restricted. (German)
  3. “Using the possibility of physical violence .. to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want.” The language used is bad style, but also this wording does not work, because it doesn’t include more subtle threats that are not openly using the possibility of physical violence. (German)


Questions

  1. 3.1-Harassment- The following are comments made in the name of the "Taiwan Chapter":

In this section, "Human Flesh Search" is listed as a harassment, which means that private information that has not been published, or even information that has been published, has not been published on Wikimedia. We believe that there is a situation that will still cause discomfort to others, which is to collect information published by others in Wikimedia projects, especially those published a long time ago; and then ignore the original public context and use it in inappropriate In conversation. For example, a person signed up to participate in the Wikipedia middle school student camp in middle school, and announced his age in the discussion in the future. The reason was that he had disclosed the approximate age at that time when he signed up for the high school student camp. Later, the announcement was based on the activity page The information is extrapolated. Can the current UCoC cover such a situation? If not, it is recommended to consider making up. (Chinese)


3.2 Abuse of Power, Privilege, or Influence

Phrase Changes

  1. Gaslighting Wording Suggestion - "People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to attack others who disagree with them."
    1. The second part of this sentence is not specifically related to gaslighting in my opinion. Attacks from a status of authority do happen (eg. threats: "be very careful of being disruptive", "very very big problem if you are", "people will start to lose patience"[4]), but those can be direct, unmasked attacks that I wouldn't consider gaslighting. I think "attack others who disagree with them" should be part of the previous point ("Abuse of seniority and connections"). It seems to me this is what confuses some people about the "gaslighting" point. I'd suggest a different wording: "People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to misinterpret, discredit or downplay others with less authority." (English)


3.3 Content vandalism and abuse of the projects

Broader Comments -

  1. I am very concerned that the draft UCoC does not explicitly say anything about racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry outside of direct insults and vandalism. This concern is compounded by the fact that I've recently realized that no policy documents at English Wikipedia or the WMF web sites appear to even mention these terms. I believe that this may be a factor in racial bias on [English] Wikipedia, gender bias on [English] Wikipedia, and other documented disparities. If administrators who want to oppose non-insult, non-vandalism expressions of bigotry find they are not backed up by policy, have they been less likely to do so? If rank-and-file editors find that opposition to such bigotry is not backed up by policy nor by administrator action, have they been less likely to do so as well?
    1. a.Consider, for example, an editor articulating a theory about a Jewish conspiracy on a talk page, a conspiracy theory connected to the topic of the associated article and hence an ostensibly valid subject for talk page discussion. The UCoC draft as currently written has a great deal to say about empowering editors, respect, and insults, going so far as to define repeated sarcasm as a possible form of harassment, while being silent about anti-Semitism. So it seems to me that, were a second editor to accurately point out that this conspiracy theory is anti-Semitic, application of this UCoC would suggest sanctions against the second editor for disempowering, disrespecting, or insulting the first editor, and Heaven forbid the second editor to have been sarcastic in the course of directing attention to that aspect of the conspiracy theory.
    2. b.The above hypothetical isn't to say that sarcasm can't actually be involved in an insult, just that for the draft UCoC to elevate sarcasm to a form of harassment while not mentioning racism or sexism or homophobia or anti-Semitism explicitly is incongruous. A UCoC for all Wikimedia projects should have something to say about racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and other forms of bigotry, and should say it clearly. (English)
  2. I'm afraid this code might be hijacked by sneaky people, certainly more accustomed to knowing the rules (and playing them) than contributing content. While this code of conduct may seem like a good idea at first glance, we must also be careful. I think that clarifications should be made in order to avoid a certain amount of interpretation in the future. Finally, I am also in favor of a kind of points permit. (French)
  3. For the ease of general readability please avoid abbreviations like POV (German)
  4. Redundancy with the TOU, especially concerning sections 3.1 and 3.3 (Polish)
  5. We cannot discuss a Code of Conduct without taking the sanctioning mechanism into mind- One aspect in the discussion about this UcoC is that we are trying to find a set of sanctionalizable behaviors and also perhaps even the sanctions to be applied, but have not yet discussed how to enforce this in a proper, within the Communities accepted way. With Proper Community involvement and endorsement. (English)
  6. Rather than talking about a code of conduct instilled by a team of foundation employees within the movement, I think this text would benefit from being thought of as a charter which would be the subject of a membership campaign via a collection of signatures within members of the Wikimedian community in order to give it all its legitimacy. In reaction to what already pointed out in the previous section, unlike a code of conduct, a charter will be much more difficult to hijack by bad guys. (French)

Broader Questions-

  1. Unacceptable behavior - The following are comments made in the name of the "Taiwan Chapter":

We want to know whether UCoC will be one of the factors to consider when participating in the Wikimedia movement in the future. For example, when applying for subsidies, setting up branch organizations, applying for the Wikimedia Foundation or various wiki projects, will the parties' past UCoC compliance records be listed as important information? (Chinese)