Universal code of conduct

[Vigilant]

The code of conduct is a disaster from top to bottom, but the "gaslighting" bit deserves a special award. I've seen a couple of editors rant that they were being gaslighted, and to the best of my recollection every single one was a severe case of IDHT & the alleged victim was warring against basically unanimous opposition. It takes a very special sort of mindset for someone to decide dozens of random strangers somehow all joined a pointless conspiracy to target them personally with bizarre mind games. The notion of gaslighting on a wiki is especially absurd. Everything is logged and citable in diffs, with countless random people passing by who can check the links and diffs. It's strange how the random people who do jump in always seem to jump join up with the gaslighting-conspiracy. Alsee (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

I like this person!

Yair rand their FAQ says the exact opposite. The WMF has declared that there is not going to be any RFC or anything. They may-or-may-not tweak the text based on comments here, then they are going to submit this dumpsterfire to the board for approval. They don't give a crap whether the community accepts it, they intend to impose it by force. Alsee (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

Near and dear to my heart.

SuperProtectMyVirginity and WhamBamFram get a section

[Poetlister]

That was Sänger (T-C-L), presumably no relation.

[Midsize Jake]

Near and dear to my heart.

SuperProtectMyVirginity and WhamBamFram get a section

It's good that someone is pointing this stuff out over there, but it's hard to compare those two cases in terms of personal conduct. "SuperProtect" was imposed to prevent WP admins from changing technical things like whether or not the new Media Screwer Viewer and Visual Edsel Editor would be the defaults over the old versions they were supposed to replace, and while it was certainly arrogant and disrespectful for the WMF to impose it, I don't think they ever used it to punish anybody directly or get their way in a content dispute... did they? (Our thread on it is here, btw.)

I dunno, but maybe the example they really should be thinking about would be something like the Oliver Keyes situation, where the WMF hires someone from the community without caring much about how widely-disliked they are, and that person then goes on to conduct himself (or herself) in ways that bring the WMF into further disrepute.

[Vigilant]

SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

[Poetlister]

"SuperProtect" was imposed to prevent WP admins from changing technical things like whether or not the new Media Screwer Viewer and Visual Edsel Editor would be the defaults over the old versions they were supposed to replace, and while it was certainly arrogant and disrespectful for the WMF to impose it, I don't think they ever used it to punish anybody directly or get their way in a content dispute... did they?

They obviously used it to get their way in a dispute, albeit not one about content. Some people would have called it bullying.

[tarantino]

SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

His posts prior to moderation.

As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. Doubly
so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily
denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken over
the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process when
it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.

The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to use
every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.

I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its flatulence
to itself.

Yeah, we've seen from the branding fiasco just how much the imperial
overlords deign to respect the opinions of the peasants.

The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the community
board elections, have been scuttled for Very Convenient Reasons.

The model is terribly broken and nobody should provide any support,
financial or otherwise, to the WMF in its current incarnation.

That's OK. I have much bigger platforms. My apologies for the
ultra-offensive reference to...flatulence.

Best,
Dan

Dan has 35 thousand followers on Twitter.

And for my friends over at @Wikipedia_Forum
: There's no removed post on Wikimedia-L with me cursing a mean streak. What you see is what I am being disciplined for.

Which is an odd choice. I'm way less trouble when I'm simply amused than when I'm feeling self-righteous.

Too bad @Wikipedia_Forum (the official twitter feed of Wikipediocracy) has been moribund for almost three years.

[Vigilant]

My experience of the digests provided by staff in the strategy process was the opposite - they were open-minded, fair and helpful. And more or less inevitable, we can't expect every member of the drafting committee to follow every line of the discussion on this page. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that sort of what they're being paid to do?

Or are you explicitly saying in a public forum that the feedback that was requested will inevitably be summarily ignored and the YouCock moved forward with?

[Eric Corbett]

Surely the only mystery here is why anyone thought their feedback would be taken into account in the first place.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

Wikimedia mailing list members think this should be rated NC-17.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA

[Vigilant]

From what I'm reading in the draft, the only possible strategy is to never, ever publicly comment on any page on a W?F server.

[Vigilant]

Ashely van Haeftan is as pointlessly prissy as ever.

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. --Fæ (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. --Fæ (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You know, one might think that the guy who posted a picture, to commons, of himself being sodomized might have just a bit more of a sense of humor about penis jokes.

Additionally, since he's posted, with great relish, about his own dick sucking adventures, in a locker room no less, this all seems a bit contrived, even for him.

[Randy from Boise]

Oh, he makes professional victimhood a profession, but you know that.

Honestly, Ashley is the one that needs to go away. I need to take a look to see if he's ever created anything good at WP, he strikes me as a drone bee.

t

[Vigilant]

Given the tangled web with Maria Sefidari Huici and Laura Hale, isn't it about time for the WMF to hire outside counsel to audit the situation?

[Vigilant]

Who is this utter turd, Libcub (T-C-L), who keeps shitting up the talk page?

[tarantino]

Who is this utter turd, Libcub (T-C-L), who keeps shitting up the talk page?

He's a librarian.

[Vigilant]

Who is this utter turd, Libcub (T-C-L), who keeps shitting up the talk page?

He's a librarian.

A gay librarian from Portland from his various userboxes.

Paul J Weiss.

Let the games begin!

Names to faces!


https://ischool.uw.edu/people/phd/profile/pjweiss

Grantee: Paul J. Weiss (Libcub on en:WP, etc.). I have been a Wikimedian for over 6 years, with over 3200 edits in the English Wikipedia, and a few contributions to other projects. My bachelor's is in linguistics, my master's is in library & information studies, and I am now in the PhD program in information science at the University of Washington's Information School. I have spent 28 years as a librarian in the field

[Randy from Boise]

I just did a six week (WMF sponsored?) focus group for an academic study on missing content from Wikipedia with someone who was in information science at UW, a fellow group participant.

He was okay, I'd have a beer with him.

tim

[Vigilant]

Read his comments on the You-COCK draft talk page.

I'd slap his ass into next week.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

Some of his ideas are ludicrous, like thinking that "presenting opinion as fact" rises to the level where it needs to listed as a punishable offense.

And he goes on long rants about bad faith while making the most bad faith charges of anyone on the page.

That plus the pathetic stanning of W?F. A real douchecanoe on first glance.

Reminds me of Aron Manning and his sad rants about things where he keeps invoking how all the people who *aren't* participating totally disagree with the things written. The silent supermajority, as it were!

[Vigilant]

Strangely, libcub has gone silent.

[Vigilant]

Someone makes a cogent point.

[tarantino]

Someone makes a cogent point.

Quantocius_Quantotius sounds a lot like that man with a thousand pseudonyms Rogol Domedonfors. There are some tells in his style.

[Pudeo]

The UCOC has been revised and a change log has been posted:
Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review/Change log

The first change is probably the biggest one. They've added that the UCOC also applies to private interaction between Wikipedians.

Gaslighting was also revised to "Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want."

Further accouncement:

A second phase that focuses on how the UCoC should be enforced is expected to launch in January. We will provide more detailed information soon.

[Poetlister]

The first change is probably the biggest one. They've added that the UCOC also applies to private interaction between Wikipedians.

That's very dodgy. Could it include any interaction between two people who happen to be Wikipedia editors even if it has no obvious relevance to Wikipedia?

[Midsize Jake]

Could it include any interaction between two people who happen to be Wikipedia editors even if it has no obvious relevance to Wikipedia?

Since that's obviously unrealistic, IMO we should be charitable here and say "no" — they've kept in the language on where the CoC applies generally ("It applies to all Wikimedia projects, technical spaces, in-person and virtual events"), so if it ever turned into a legal question, I strongly doubt they could make a case for that.

Still, there might be "edge cases" taking place in (for example) the official conference hotel at Wikimania, where two WP users meet and are inexplicably attracted to each other physically, so they go off to a seemingly-private room with the intention of having some sort of sexual encounter — only to have one of them realize that the other is an administrator, which causes him/her to be romantically "turned off." He/she then walks out in a huff, the administrator takes this personally, and subsequently bans the turned-off person from Wikipedia. So then the question is, would the ban be upheld because the administrator interpreted the walk-out as a violation of WP:NPA, or as an abuse of WP:RTV, since it took place at a WMF-sponsored event? Or does the WMF's jurisdiction end at the door to the hotel room? Or, maybe the bathroom door inside the hotel room? Also, is there video of the entire incident, and will someone post it so we can all see it?

[Vigilant]

Let's be realistic.

The YouCock will be deployed as all previous 'rules' have been, to punish your enemies.

It will be deployed to 'win' previously unwinnable fights via 'trump card' against those who annoy the WMF.

Have no doubt that Fram would have been globally locked and tagged as a YouCock Violator with no further explanation.

[Poetlister]

Also, is there video of the entire incident, and will someone post it so we can all see it?

It is essential that such incidents are videoed and the result put on Commons. Commons is NOTCENSORED and this is all vital as part of the sum of all knowledge.

[Anroth]

So then the question is, would the ban be upheld because the administrator interpreted the walk-out as a violation of WP:NPA, or as an abuse of WP:RTV, since it took place at a WMF-sponsored event? Or does the WMF's jurisdiction end at the door to the hotel room? Or, maybe the bathroom door inside the hotel room? Also, is there video of the entire incident, and will someone post it so we can all see it?

In the UK at least, because both are volunteers for the organisation, the admin is guility of misconduct in using their position of influence over a subordinate and the WMF would be liable to be sued by the banned editor, as the conduct took place at an officially sanctioned event. If they were both editors, it would likely be able to argue there was no power structure of influence and so they as the employer (yes volunteers are still employed) are not liable.

I mean, its not even a hypothetical. People have been getting jiggy at conferences for as long as they have been held. And suing afterwards when it goes wrong. Its why employers have social event policies distinguishing between what it s a work event or merely an event where work people happen to be. As an aside, the law firm I worked for determined that anything that had more than 3 employees at it was officially a work event, it was just legally easier.

For the most part, volunteers have all the rights of employees when it comes to things like harrassment, sexual conduct/abuse etc. Its only when you start talking about pay that they differ in the eyes of the law.

[Poetlister]

That may be why international WMF events are rarely held here and WMUK events aren't residential.

[C&B]

For the most part, volunteers have all the rights of employees when it comes to things like harrassment, sexual conduct/abuse etc. Its only when you start talking about pay that they differ in the eyes of the law.

Indeed, they are workers rather than employees: they work for the employer rather than be employed by the employer even though the employer is still their employer.

[Poetlister]

For the most part, volunteers have all the rights of employees when it comes to things like harrassment, sexual conduct/abuse etc. Its only when you start talking about pay that they differ in the eyes of the law.

Indeed, they are workers rather than employees: they work for the employer rather than be employed by the employer even though the employer is still their employer.

Yes, for example they are entitled to paid sick leave. I'm not sure how that works for unpaid volunteers; presumably it just means that they are paid as much as when they are working.

[Midsize Jake]

For the most part, volunteers have all the rights of employees when it comes to things like harrassment, sexual conduct/abuse etc. Its only when you start talking about pay that they differ in the eyes of the law.

Okay, I agree — but we're not actually discussing employee rights for the purpose of harassment lawsuits or other potential violations of civil or criminal law, are we? We're discussing whether or not the new Universal COCK (the "K" stands for either "...and Kindness" or "Kebabs," I'm not sure which) would be applied to the ban, either because the sexual aggressor in this case violated the Code or, alternatively, was able to use his/her position to successfully argue that the other person was actually the violator.

I mean, sure, it would be great if some of these folks could be thrown in the slammer on assault charges, but most of these cases never even get reported, often because the victims are non-billionaires and therefore don't trust the police. And when they do get reported... well, that's why you need video documentation of the incident.

There are plenty of far more realistic and/or serious hypothetical scenarios we could come up with, but what strikes me here is that the WMF is trying to take a more all-inclusive "cookie-cutter" approach to where and when this code applies — the problem being that this approach might not be so appropriate for smaller wikis in smaller countries/regions where the participants are more likely to know each other personally.

[No Ledge]

Since "next year" is now this year, I thought it best to retire the old thread.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors has ratified the new Universal Code of Conduct.

Does anyone here have any problems with the final text? Is there anything there that goes above and beyond what's already in the English Wikipedia policies?

Of course the devil is in the details of how to enforce it, and discussions about how to do that are just beginning.

[Midsize Jake]

Since "next year" is now this year, I thought it best to retire the old thread.

Technically, that thread was supposed to be about the "Case Review Committee" that was set up to allow people to appeal their SanFranBans. Admittedly there was a fair amount of material in that thread about the UCoC (or "YouCOCK" as some folks prefer to call it), but as for the UCoC specifically, we already had a thread for that which I've merged this new one into, so we're actually now back to the old one, just not the same old one as before. (Sorry for any confusion...)

Does anyone here have any problems with the final text? Is there anything there that goes above and beyond what's already in the English Wikipedia policies?

It goes well beyond en.wp policies, doesn't it? I thought we'd already been over this... Pretty much the whole point of this document is anti-bigotry, and while I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all, WP:CIVIL has only the one bullet point that says "personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities"... "contribute to an uncivil environment."

This thing explicitly defines any such behavior as "harassment," which is "unacceptable," implying that you'll be kicked out for it, no exceptions made. If this is all taken literally, which I suspect is the authors' intent, there will be a lot less slack given to people — including well-established users who get away with stuff like that routinely. So it probably won't be taken literally at first, but give it a couple of years and who knows how far it could get.

[Vigilant]

Too late, guys.

You fell asleep at the switch.

What, what what?!

The community has not approved the WMF's UCoC. It is not a Wikimedia
policy, it is not binding, it has no authority. The WMF does not control
the Wikimedia projects, and has no jurisdiction in this area.

The community rejected this over and over again. It is harmful that the
Board is pretending they can do this unilaterally.

-- Yair Rand

[Poetlister]

"The WMF continues its steady departure from the community. It is quite sad to see." - Benjamin Ikuta

Risker responds.

While I often agree with you, Yair Rand, in this case I think you're
mistaken. Aside from the long-ago "community vote" on licensing (which was
pretty much required based on the prior licensing scheme), every
Wikimedia-wide policy has been authorized by the WMF Board of Trustees.
That includes the terms of use and the privacy policy. As the technical
owners of the infrastructure, the WMF Board does have the right (if not the
responsibility) to identify the manner in which the websites it supports
and hosts can be used, and I think this principle is actually pretty widely
held, at least in the abstract (i.e., hosting organizations can and should
apply standards on the services they host). In every policy-related case
that I have reviewed going back to the very earliest days, there has been
at least some level of community discussion, and there have always been
detractors of every policy the Board has approved; that has not made the
policies either invalid or unworkable.

I've never been convinced that including a mixture of required, forbidden,
and aspirational standards all in one document is a good idea, and I
personally struggle to see how including essentially unenforceable aspects
of the UCoC will do anything other than weaken the effectiveness of rest of
the document. For example, I cannot imagine anyone being sanctioned in any
way for "failure to thank" or "failure to mentor", although both of these
are considered expectations in the "Civility" section; and one thing that a
Uniform Code of Conduct would logically have is a uniform enforcement
scheme.

Nonetheless, I do believe that it is within the Board's scope and
responsibility to approve this and other global policies designed to
protect the WMF, the projects, the users of the websites, and the content
managers/editors/etc (what we often call "the community").

Risker/Anne

[Vigilant]

You know you got it wrong when this happens.

[Poetlister]

From: Ziko van Dijk

Dear Risker,

This is exactly my concern about the UCoC. Thank you for your words,
which, as usually, point to the essence of the subject.

Someone who tries to achieve too much, will finally achieve nothing.
In parts, the document reads like the job description for a paid
social media manager, not like a basic guideline for volunteers who
decide themselves how much time they want or can to invest in their
hobby.

On the other hand, I do agree that the owner of a wiki has a
responsibility to provide basic rules, and I do regret that the global
community did not create such a code itself. It did not happen in ...
20 years!

We will see how this all will turn out in practice. Even if you can,
theoretically, get banned for not helping a (problematic) newbie, we
hope that the enforcers will know how to wisely use the new
instrument. The acceptance within the community will depend more on
that than on the exact content or wording.

Kind regards
Ziko

From: Yair Rand

@Risker: The Global sysop policy was created through a sequence of
proposals, considerable debate and editing, and a vote in which over 1800
contributors participated. The Global ban policy had an RFC on Meta. Afaik,
the Board also had no involvement in the Steward policy, the global
checkuser and oversight policies, or the policies for Global Rollback,
Abuse Filter helpers, or New wiki importers global user groups.

The Terms of Use were drafted with a lengthy community editing process,
although the Board did the final approval. The 2014 amendment to the ToU
also had a long community discussion, with over 1000 supporters of the
change, with the Board implementing the community-supported amendment. The
community's decisions were critical to these, and the Board did not
unilaterally impose anything on the community.

I do not see any reason for the community to listen to the Board on the
UCoC. I doubt anyone thinks that the Board or WMF has a better idea of how
to put together conduct policies than the community. Certainly the complete
failure to notice basic flaws in the document attest to that. Maybe at some
point in the future the community can put together a clear set of basic
global conduct rules, but the WMF's UCoC is not it.

(And a fun fact: The Board approved the UCoC on December 9, the same day as
the bylaws change, and yet again violated the Board's rules about
publishing resolutions within a week, for the at least 19th time in the
past year, out of 24 known resolutions.)

(Also, contrary to the recent WMF blog post on the UCoC, the WMF also does
not "administer Wikipedia", a mistake they have made for the second time
now.)

From Gnangarra, picking up a point by Yair rand

> the WMF also does not "administer Wikipedia", a mistake they have made for
> the second time now.

a very risky mistake too, hope legal is taking note as it also demonstrates
why its necessary to have a practical and public difference in naming
between Wikimedia and Wikipedia

From: Anders Wennersten

The servers are owned by WMF. And they can then state basic rules that
all must apply to. And especially for hatred and threats they must by
law enforce a proper policy

We have seen Facebook and Twitter be more proactive and the law in EU
goes further with demanding basic acceptable language and behaviour for
what is being done on a service providers platform.

The community can not override law or what the platform provider deem to
be necessary. We cab discuss how they came to this decision, but the
UCoC have been discussed in length and the communities have influence in
the appointments of a majority of the members in the Board

[No Ledge]

So, yes, I guess I was basically "asleep" during the 2020 part of this thread. I may have seen it in the background but I didn't remember any of it. This topic only got my attention after the "Quisling" fork started.

This is like the terms of use and the privacy policy in that they all tend to put people to sleep. And they're not things that require you to make a real choice. Who wants to waste an hour reading those walls of text? I'm surprised that grocery stores don't yet require all their customers to sign a terms of use when they enter the store. "You are free to not sign and not shop here, you are free to starve yourself. Nobody is forcing you to eat. But you must agree to binding arbitration before we can allow you to shop here".

Risker's observation that this is "a mixture of required, forbidden, and aspirational standards all in one document" is spot on. They located this on a page titled "Policy text" but the word "policy" does not appear even once in the text. The word "guideline" does appear though,

This Universal Code of Conduct (UCOC) defines a minimum set of guidelines...

So let me rephrase my question... is there any thing here that goes above and beyond Wikipedia guidelines?

Is any guideline violation a blockable offense, or should editors only be blocked for policy violations?

[Vigilant]

It's like all rules on the wiki... it will be used to punish the unfavored.

[Poetlister]

Is any guideline violation a blockable offense, or should editors only be blocked for policy violations?

You're an admin. Have you ever blocked anyone for guideline violation? If you saw that another admin had done that, would you think that it was wrong and do anything about it? Of course, we all know that admins do make bad blocks, through stupidity or maliciousness.

[Osborne]

Ehm... why trouble oneself with guidelines? There are plenty of vague policies to choose from that would fit a given situation. Just accuse the editor of disruption, or add WP:NOTHERE (T-H-L) for good measure, those are popular. Oh wait, that's not even a guideline. Well, here's the answer: even an explanatory supplement can be the reason for blocking. Anything that suits to supplement each breakfast with enough editor blood to keep those antibody levels healthy

[No Ledge]

My block log is really short. Some here have said I don't do nothin' as an admin because of that, but I stated as part of my platform when I ran that I didn't expect to use the block button much, and I've stuck to that. Most of my blocks are for violations of the Wikipedia:Vandalism (T-H-L) policy. I don't go looking for vandals, but when I see them acting excessively or when someone brings one to my attention I block them. I also have a few blocks for violating the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (T-H-L) behavioral guideline; point taken, maybe that should be elevated to policy.

I am not a fan of "not here" blocks and you will never see me using that rationale. There should always be a "positive" reason for blocking, never a need to use a "negative" reason. The people who overran the US Capitol can be charged with any number of crimes; there is no need to charge them with being "not here to make laws" or "not here to observe the legislative process in action".

Could "not here" blocks be considered to be UCoC violations?

[Osborne]

Respect for your stance on blocking. This is a healthy approach that more admins should follow.
Should be noted I made my comment in a generalized sarcastic manner. I'm not sure whether you felt that it's addressed to you, so I'd like to make it clear it wasn't at all.

[Beeblebrox]

I am not a fan of "not here" blocks and you will never see me using that rationale. There should always be a "positive" reason for blocking, never a need to use a "negative" reason. The people who overran the US Capitol can be charged with any number of crimes; there is no need to charge them with being "not here to make laws" or "not here to observe the legislative process in action".

Could "not here" blocks be considered to be UCoC violations?

I think I may have used it once or twice, (hard to recall exactly, my log is quite long and mostly boring, repetitive username stuff) but it is pretty clearly the most abuse-prone of the pre-loaded block rationales. I also see some admins just using it lazily, blocking vandals with it. It's not wrong, exactly, vandals are pretty clearly not there to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, but we have a more specific term that is easily understood by everyone, why not use that?

[Poetlister]

It could be argued that editors who spend most of their time on drama boards and make few contributions to article space are not there to build an encyclopaedia. And it might actually improve things if some of them were blocked. But I can't see it happening.

[Osborne]

It could be argued that editors who spend most of their time on drama boards and make few contributions to article space are not there to build an encyclopaedia. And it might actually improve things if some of them were blocked. But I can't see it happening.

Yes, we agree we know who needs to go purely for the sanity of the community.

[Poetlister]

It's hit the mainstream media.

Wikipedia has a new ‘Universal Code of Conduct’ to deal with harassment, misinformation

Wikipedia now has its own ‘Universal Code of Conduct’, a first-of-its-kind document that will “create a global set of community standards for addressing negative behaviour on the site”.

“The code is the result of recommendations that were made as part of 2018 global consultation with Wikipedia communities called the 2030 Movement Strategy,” Amanda Keton, General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation told indianexpress.com over an email query. The global consultation included 200-plus salons, which are community-organised regional gatherings, spread across 50 countries with over 2,000 Wikipedia community members being involved.

Before this new universal code, “there was no consistent way of addressing harassment on the platform and the incidents were addressed on a case by case basis, and varied project by project,” she pointed out.

Indian Express