Universal code of conduct

[tarantino]

This could include current and upcoming initiatives, as well as re-evaluating or adding community input to the two new office action policy tools (temporary and partial Foundation bans).

I fear that "upcoming initiatives" means the universal code of conduct. "Current initiatives" means discussing T&S's expanded role with just the list of disadvantaged interest groups. Given the FRAMBAN, does the Community really trust and feel comfortable with codes of conduct being with the scope of WMF Staff and the WMF Board?

Who will collect "community indput to the two new office action policy tools"? Will it be the WMF Staff using Meta Wiki? Another "office hours" online chat, or a full blown RFC on en:wikipedia? While FRAMBAN ignited the fire, the "initiatives" call for focused attention on multiple fronts.

The foundation has released their draft recommendations for structural change of "the movement". There's a large number of them, and they include a universal code of conduct which they want "all stakeholders/participants in any and all activity be required to sign".

If indeed the movement is to become “the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge” diversifying is critical and we run the risk of alienating others, silencing divergent voices, and creating tensions without a clear policy which tells people what actions are (and are not) acceptable, lays out who and how to report violations, and clearly defines what actions may be taken for breaching the code.

It is anticipated that the change will create a more welcoming environment across all platforms and facilitate removal of disruptive elements who refuse to abide by the Code. With a clear message that the Foundation has zero-tolerance for unacceptable behavior in any endeavors associated with it, a clear message of equitable participation and inclusion will bolster dynamic, positive growth.

Those who do not wish to comply could leave the platform, as it is a major shift in the way things have been done in the past with each project developing its own “rules of engagement”. The argument for maintaining project-specific conduct guides is that they can be culturally sensitive.

The argument is somewhat nullified because language plurality in larger projects covers broad geographic areas and cultural diversity. There will be resistance to change, but the need to develop an overriding universal organizational policy to which anyone involved with a Wikimedia brand must adhere is imperative. These should be developed with transparency to the various project Arbcoms to avoid the pitfalls which have happened in the past (see links Q6). Stakeholders will have the ability to add platform specific rules, but not remove any provision of the overriding policy.

Yes, this will be great for the drama inducement.

[Vigilant]

1. It is anticipated that the change will create a more welcoming environment across all platforms and facilitate removal of disruptive elements who refuse to abide by the Code. With a clear message that the Foundation has zero-tolerance for unacceptable behavior in any endeavors associated with it, a clear message of equitable participation and inclusion will bolster dynamic, positive growth.

Does that imply that WMF employees and contractors will be held to the same Code?

Cause I'm thinking you've got a few still there that should probably lose their jobs.
Ryan "Snuffster" Kaldari
James "I protect pedo friends" Forrestor
Kalliope "I enable rapists" Tsouroupidou
Jimbo "I perv of girls" Wales
Maria "I get people banned who impugn my spouse's editing" Sefidari
Laura "Fly me to the moon" Hale
Katherine "Let them eat cake" Meher

We've got whole stables of long term recidivist assholes
Eric "Cunt" Corbett
Ashley "Auntie Bathsheba" van Halfwit
Tony Sidaway
Slim "Linda Mack" Virgin
David "Old Goth" Gerard
Peter "Smallboner" Exman of Signpost fame


Careful what you wish for, WMF.

[Katie]

1Q4b. What could be done to mitigate this risk? Unsure why it would be of value to retain toxic behaviors, thus there do not appear to be reasons to mitigate the risk.

That will ensure a lot of protests: what about the risk of bannings due to revenge or, perhaps, a double standard? I think whoever answered that question that way should take a lot of classes on community management because it's clear they're utterly lacking in any of these skills.

[mendaliv]

... so where's this supposed code of conduct? All I see is a lot of wheel-spinning about why a code of conduct is a good thing, and nothing about what it contains.

[Earthy Astringent]

You missed at least a dozen abusive admins who ran roughshod over “the community” with absolutely zero oversight.

[tarantino]

... so where's this supposed code of conduct? All I see is a lot of wheel-spinning about why a code of conduct is a good thing, and nothing about what it contains.

The Working Group is still refining them, seeking research and expertise, and consulting with communities. Your input is valued.

There's nothing on the talk page yet. You could go first!

[mendaliv]

The Working Group is still refining them, seeking research and expertise, and consulting with communities. Your input is valued.

"Research and expertise." In other words they don't know what they're doing.

I'm with eagle on UCC: The better answer is a MCC (model code of conduct) that individual communities can ratify, and perhaps that is the default on smaller wikis. Honestly unless UCC is kept as a purely aspirational document rather than concrete, binding rules. Alternatively, if those rules are ones that are truly universal (along the lines of jus cogens (T-H-L) norms in international law), and not a single rule more, there might be an argument there. But with all the excitement these idiots are giving the idea, it's clear they intend it to be a set of enforceable cultural norms.

[Poetlister]

The whole thing is typical WMF waffle. And how will it work? Will people creating new accounts be presented with a wall of text to read and agree to before account creation? And what about IP editors?

[mendaliv]

It'll just be another document like the TOU. "By clicking 'Submit' you agree to the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, Code of Conduct, and other applicable policies." Anything more invasive will get shot down, and some genius at legal will say "We can just roll it into the ToU agreement everyone sees when they edit a page! It's not like they have to actually read it to be held to it!"

[rhindle]

I'm surprised they have not done this years ago, but of course it's the WMF. I realize at the beginning the idea was to be able to edit going through as few barriers as possible. This should be irrelevant now. Just about everyone knows, at least in the English speaking world, that "anyone can edit" so adding a few barriers should not be an issue anymore. I do wonder if they will create an arbitration clause like most businesses are doing.

[mendaliv]

I'm honestly not sure. It seems like a no-brainer, right? That said there are apparently reasons (other than unpopularity among end users and digital rights activists) not to have mandatory arbitration. I've heard there are reasons not to do it in the employment law context, for example. If I recall correctly, it has to do with the ease with which petty grievances can be arbitrated rather successfully and annoyingly, when courts would normally decline to get involved.

[Poetlister]

No way would the WMF want to make things easier for complainants.

[mendaliv]

No way would the WMF want to make things easier for complainants.

Yeah exactly. While it's probably useful when you're talking about consumer service contracts (cell phones, etc.) where you get a pretty average cross-section of society, I think with Wikipedia you're talking about a group of people that are more intelligent, have more free time, are more neurotic, and are more likely to bear grudges. The hints dropped, I think, in discussion about the Fram case, about just how much petty grievance stuff they get normally, is illuminating.

If I recall correctly, the whole employment law issue might've dealt with an observation that professional arbitrators tend to be more focused on fairness and equity (in the general sense, not the legal sense), and are more apt to issue wishy-washy or split-the-baby decisions than courts, that'll easily toss your case for failure to state a claim. Plus with an organization like Wikimedia, you wouldn't get quite the same home field advantage of requiring all the proceedings happen in San Francisco; a professional arbitrator could just say "We'll do it telephonically from my office in Colorado" or something.

[DanMurphy]

Related.

Jesus tap dancing Christ.

Q 3a What will change because of the Recommendation?

Hopefully the pursuit for more diversity in content will become more and more transversal to any activity once editors are aware of the gaps and provided with lists of articles for every underrepresented group and on any topic (e.g. GLAM, folk, monuments and buildings, etc.).

At the same time, this may increase in higher quality of content. Articles reflecting more points of view reflect better neutrality and Wikimedia platforms including more conceptual diversity better reflect the sum of human knowledge.

The measurements can be a reference point to turn to in case of deletion conflict when considering an article is not notable enough.

The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and ‘universal knowledge’ needs to be discarded. Having top priority content about any group of people, nation,... is in this direction. The idea of encyclopedic knowledge feels problematic. What is a “universal knowledge”? Who gets to decide what is “universal”? We need to focus on moving from a single center to multiple ones.

The whole page reads like it was written by a group of third tier apparatchiks after a particularly grueling struggle session.

The aforementioned.

ffs, it's like a lost Portlandia episode.

Guiding Questions

These questions are not meant to be answered one-to-one but should help the group frame their own conversations and their consultations with movement stakeholders.

What privileges and power structures are hindering our progress towards our strategic direction and vision?
What do we need to do to support change and respond to community concerns?
How can we become allies to underrepresented groups to counter the structures of power and privilege and move towards knowledge equity?
How do we extend the Wikimedia presence globally, with a special focus on underserved and emerging communities, like indigenous peoples of industrialized nations, and regions of the world, such as Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America?
How do we bring in those who are not yet part of the movement?

[mendaliv]

What is a “universal knowledge”?

I think a good example would be the valence of hydrogen. Or that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter on a flat plane is approximately 3.14159 in base 10.

[Vigilant]

What is a “universal knowledge”?

I think a good example would be the valence of hydrogen. Or that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter on a flat plane is approximately 3.14159 in base 10.

Jessica Yaniv to FA!

[Vigilant]

It dawns on them...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#And

I, too, am on the way out. This stuff is the product of the same small unrepresentative group of kumbayah singers and grifters as have been involve with projects such as Whose Knowledge. They seem to be making a living producing incessant utopian twaddle that pushes this project further away from its core goal, and there are some unsettling aspects regarding how they meet up, attract funding etc. I don't want to be socially engineered and I'm buggered if I will be dictated to by a bunch of happy-clappy, seemingly socially paranoid nepotists who couldn't write a decent article if they spent a year doing nothing else. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The WMF is the common enemy!

Have you see wikiedu.org?

[Moral Hazard]

How do we extend the Wikimedia presence globally, with a special focus on underserved and emerging communities, like indigenous peoples of industrialized nations , and regions of the world, such as Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America?

In 1986, Brazil's largest exports were automobiles and steel.

[eagle]

How do we extend the Wikimedia presence globally, with a special focus on underserved and emerging communities, like indigenous peoples of industrialized nations , and regions of the world, such as Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America?

In 1986, Brazil's largest exports were automobiles and steel.

I am sure that a research sociologist or economist visiting most indigenous peoples in the Eastern United States would conclude that the basis of their economies is casino gambling, so do we focus upon that rather than trying to preserve their history, language and traditions apart from the landscape of 21st century global society?

Let's take a specific example of an editorial blind spot. US Roads is fanatical about documenting roads as they exist rather than looking into the sociological impact of the routing decisions or the controversy surrounding the planning and construction. They are road-friendly. There have been editors who found RS covering long battles over road construction, but believe it or not, such articles have been actively suppressed by US Roads:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =303839178
and then
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _Route_200
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _Route_200

The most recent example, which was produced by this summer's wikiedu.org student:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstat ... y,_Alabama
How long before the US Roads people will move in to delete it?

Here is one that survived proposed merger with non-existent I-494:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosstown ... _(Chicago)

Let us assume that there are editorial blind spots: battles over highway construction, the pre-white settler history of lands previously occupied by native populations, etc. Is there a viable "top down" mechanism to solve this problem? Do people who want to write about place X or highway X need to comply with a mandate from on high that the "other stuff" (which they do not consider relevant) must be included? Will the code of conduct prohibit polite debate as to the quality or relevance of the proposed "other stuff?"

Of greater importance, what do WP's readers expect? If a user wants quick factual information about University X, are we going to force the reader to learn about how University X was built upon land stolen from an indigenous people? How about slave labor used to build University X's buildings? How about University X's racial exclusionary policies prior to the 1960's? How about how "robber barons" donated money to build the campus? In more recent times, what about University X's investment portfolio: does it include South African companies prior to 1980s, fossil fuel companies, companies that pay less than $15 per hour or fast food companies that offer poor nutritional value? (Most editors working on University X articles are guilty of boosterism and do not want to write about these things.)

I could understand if the WMF conducted an objective survey of the readership to determine their needs, but it may be a mistake if social justice advocates came up with a content check list and tried to "force" diversity of content in a top-down mode.

The big difference between being a university student and an adult contributing to WP, is that students do a lot of required writing on assigned topics. WP editors are volunteers who write as much as they want on whatever interests them. I noticed that one of the diversity proposals is to pay editors from disadvantaged or underrepresented groups to balance out our coverage. I don't think that the volunteer editing corps would stand for that. Any payment scheme should be based on quality and effort and not the identity attributes of the editor. (To quote the current political slogan, "Equal pay for equal work.")

[Poetlister]

What is encyclopaedic is a very good question, one which has been largely ignored in the quest for the sum of all human knowledge. For example, it may be useful to some people to have reams on every feature film ever made (and of course I have written about 30 such articles), but what sort of general purpose encyclopedia is that?

[Vigilant]

Look at the contributors to this page
Dr_Aaij (T-C-L)
Cjefferys (T-C-L)

A new wiki insider grift.

The course homepage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... mmer_2019)
This is paid editing.

The wikiedu "expert" attached to this course
Shalor_(Wiki_Ed) (T-C-L)

She is ReaderofthePack (T-C-L) who used to be Tokyogirl79 who was and is a serious anime fan girl. Her early contributions are weirdly obsessive.



Here's what's going on this summer
https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/campaigns ... 9/programs

If the regulars don't find this level of coordinated, covertly managed, paid editing discomforting, then we don't have much in common.


Another course. This one has 97 students in it.
https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/U ... )/timeline

Some of these 'courses' have zero edits.
Some have very little trackable activity when you click through on them, but this might just be the professor failing to update the dashboard.


Here's the course load for the upcoming Fall 2019 semester
https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/campaigns ... 9/programs

That's 138 courses of paid editing by students.


And the old guard at en.wp wonder why the WMF doesn't give two shits about them any more....

[eagle]

Look at the contributors to this page
Dr_Aaij (T-C-L)
Cjefferys (T-C-L)

A new wiki insider grift.

There are two related questions. The first question is whether there can be a "top down" mechanism to fill blind spots in WPs coverage of encyclopedic knowledge. On a small encyclopedia project, the project has a legitimate concern that first priority should be given to "priority articles" or "core knowledge" because users expect to see those and editing staff is in short supply. When en:WP grows to 5 million articles, those concerns disappear and people spend time writing about a lot of stuff that most people will never read. However, the diversity task force is now questing whether articles that have been written in a way that is acceptable to middle class white men ignore "other stuff" that is of interest to social justice activists. If the community consensus is that the articles are fine and readers are happy, the diversity task force is really asking whether the WMF can raise the social consciousness of the average editor and reader. The only practical suggestion is to pay under-represented voices to add "other stuff" to WP, and to have a universal code of conduct to ensure that people adding "other stuff" will be greeted with civility rather than face deletion and frustration.

The second question is whether students (particularly students from campuses with "identity politics" and "grievance studies") can be mobilized to become involved in WP editing. That is the wikiedu.org "grift" that Vigilant questions. To evaluate wikiedu.org, we would need to see statistics as to how many of their edits endure for a period of time and how many students stay to edit long term. Will wikiedu.org staff or WMF diversity staff stay behind to fight to preserve (or fix) the student content?

The only other alternative is for social justice activists to focus on Wikidata where the world's "truth" can be altered without it being detected by the existing middle class white male editor base. Wikidata can help Siri, Cortana, Alexa give voice to the "other stuff" with little scrutiny.

As with Framban, this is another important powerplay in the shift from community control to WMF control.

[Disgruntled haddock]

Let's spin up a grant proposal to read all the books in the Library of Babel. Those books contain a wealth of knowledge on underrepresented groups (+1 knowledge equity clout gang) and pay significant attention to not-yet-existent global communities. This all helps position Wikipedia as the knowledge platform of not only this future but all possible ones! How's 75k a man sound?

[Vigilant]

Let's take an example:

How will articles get chosen for work?
The course dashboard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... mmer_2019)

Students will do an introduction to editing Wikipedia, write an article on a volume of poetry and one or more on a "local" topic.

Cjefferys was assigned two articles to work on.
James Purdy (scholar) (T-H-L) (local)

and Left Hand (Nawat) (T-H-L) (peotry).

He didn't do the poetry one.
I can't help but wonder what grade Cjefferys will get for failing to do his poetry article.
Another potent avenue of corruption is grade inflation.
WikiEdu wants to succeed and will need positive reviews by the students and professors.

Are bad grades even allowed at this stage of the WikiEdu project?



Looking at James Purdy, we can see that this article was started by the very same editor that is currently running the course.

curprev 16:33, 12 June 2019‎ Cjefferys talk contribs‎ 4,635 bytes +139‎ Added site needed undo Tag: Visual edit: Switched
curprev 16:08, 12 June 2019‎ Dr Aaij talk contribs‎ 4,496 bytes +6‎ this needs a citation: it's a BLP undo
curprev 16:01, 12 June 2019‎ Snappedrain23 talk contribs‎ 4,490 bytes -146‎ undo Tag: Visual edit
curprev 16:00, 12 June 2019‎ Snappedrain23 talk contribs‎ 4,636 bytes +147‎ undo Tag: Visual edit
curprev 11:47, 16 February 2019‎ Citation bot talk contribs‎ m 4,489 bytes -79‎ Alter: title. Add: doi, issue. Removed parameters. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | User-activated. undo
curprev 16:25, 22 March 2018‎ KolbertBot talk contribs‎ m 4,568 bytes +1‎ Bot: HTTP→HTTPS (v485) undo
curprev 04:31, 16 March 2018‎ Aboutmovies talk contribs‎ 4,567 bytes +51‎ added Category:Year of birth missing (living people) using HotCat undo
curprev 04:11, 22 February 2018‎ Magic links bot talk contribs‎ m 4,516 bytes +4‎ Replace magic links with templates per local RfC and MediaWiki RfC undo
curprev 17:52, 21 February 2018‎ 165.190.39.29 talk‎ 4,512 bytes +727‎ added two additional edited collections to publications undo Tag: Visual edit
curprev 00:41, 31 July 2017‎ GrahamHardy talk contribs‎ m 3,785 bytes +29‎ +defsort undo
curprev 19:22, 4 July 2017‎ PrimeBOT talk contribs‎ m 3,756 bytes +8‎ Replace magic links with templates per local RfC - BRFA undo
curprev 19:15, 10 November 2016‎ CitationCleanerBot talk contribs‎ m 3,748 bytes -26‎ →‎top: clean up, url redundant with jstor, and/or remove accessdate if no url using AWB undo
curprev 21:41, 21 May 2016‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 3,774 bytes +113‎ I know, not a directory, but this is pretty topical undo Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile app edit
curprev 18:35, 21 May 2016‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 3,661 bytes +236‎ meow undo
curprev 18:32, 21 May 2016‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 3,425 bytes +5‎ →‎References: per MF undo
curprev 18:31, 21 May 2016‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 3,420 bytes +2,590‎ undo
curprev 17:18, 21 May 2016‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 830 bytes +145‎ undo
curprev 17:17, 21 May 2016‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 685 bytes +685‎ intermediate save. computer keeps crashing and i have to catch a bus. plz don't tag yet

A professor in an official university class is getting paid students to extend articles that he previously started and has interests in.
That seems like a problem to me.
Is this a newer, industrialized version of meatpuppetting?

At the very least, the COI rules around WikiEdu need to be examined.

God forbid if Eric Corbett or Ashley van Haeften ever taught a class.

[Vigilant]

The WikiEdu expert...

is also a Women in Red member, because of course she is.

[eagle]

Look at the contributors to this page
Another course. This one has 97 students in it.
https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/U ... )/timeline

To use your second example, the course at the University of California San Francisco is "Communicating Science, Students in the Health Professions" and the focus is:

This theme explores issues around sex, gender, and age (geriatrics, pediatrics, LGBTQ+, women's and men's health). It will reinforce skills for answering drug information questions and evaluating research literature.

As a first step, the students must edit an existing WP article, selecting one from the list:

Gender and sexuality: Bisexuality, Candidiasis, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cisgender, Clotrimazole, Douche, Erectile dysfunction, Erythromycin, Gender binary, Gender dysphoria, Gonorrhea, Herpes simplex virus, Homosexuality, Human papillomavirus infection, Intersex, Labiaplasty, Men who have sex with men, Non-binary gender, Phalloplasty, Safe sex, Sex reassignment surgery, Sexual dysfunction, Sexual intercourse, Sexually transmitted infection, Syphilis, Transgender, Transgender hormone therapy, Types of rape, Valaciclovir

Again, my point is that student editors are being throw into the most controversial articles without becoming acclimated to WP community culture. The professor and wikiedu.org staff will be on hand to diffuse any conflicts, but once a code of conduct is adopted any resistance to the insertion of "other stuff" will be met with swift disciplinary action.

As a second step, the students must start a new article from scratch. This will not begin until the week of Aug 18. Any successor to Fram that follows these student's contributions will probably be guilty of "harassment."

[eagle]

I thought the best idea that WO ever launched was the student journalism stipend. We offer to pay student journalists (the staff of the college school papers) to write about Wikipedia. We need to do that again with the suggested topics being the TOU, Code of Conduct, the 2019 Community Consultation and Wikiedu.org. Some student journalists are social justice activitists and others are not but the more on-campus debate about whether WP needs social-justice motivated "other stuff" would be healthy.

[Kumioko]

The more I read about this, this is clearly intended as the WMF retaliating to the communities for the Fram situation and is basically a hostile takeover of the ineffective community based discipline systems. This could help prevent the admins from being allowed to do whatever they want while pushing editors out. So on that aspect it might be good in some ways.

On the other hand the WMF has also shown themselves to be completely incompetent when it comes to enforcement as we have seen by several of the WMF bans in the past and most recently with the Fram situation where they caved to community pressure.

So, if the community pushes back hard enough here and you have enough admins willing to overturn the WMF actions and fall on their swords, you could see the save caving here. On the other hand, if they just roll over and allow the WMF to step in, this will lead to them taking over more in the future...and then some more...and then some more.

[mendaliv]

Yep. As much gloom and doom and hopelessness people promise if we don’t roll over and play dead, the community has a much better bargaining position than they think.

I know to some extent this calls up Madman theory (T-H-L), but my god I think it could work.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Very interesting tidbit in the WP:FRAM discussion of the Universal Code of Conduct(tm). Someone points out that commenter Tar Lócesilion (T-C-L) is actually SGrabarczuk (WMF) (T-C-L) who is the "Movement Strategy Meta Liaison" (whatever that means). Szymon gets quite pissy when it is suggested that they shouldn't be commenting with their personal account.

If I was a staff member, I'd certainly be onboarded, informed, instructed and warned. But I'm an independent consultant. The difference is huge. In my agreement, there's a lot of clauses with restrictions, exceptions and reminders and it's super clear that staff and me are two different sets. I added a few sentences to the disclaimer on my (WMF) user page. When I become a staff member (if ever) I'll remove it and then the difference will be visible.

I'm not sure if I'm applicable for WMF policies related to staff. Nobody reached out to me on this.
...

[Vigilant]

I feel it's against my freedom to label me as a WMF representative in this case.

What the actual fuck?!

[Kumioko]

Seems pretty defensive to me. Also, if it does turn out to be a WMF stooge, it's not going to go over well.

[mendaliv]

I feel it's against my freedom to label me as a WMF representative in this case.

What the actual fuck?!

Oh my goodness.

Even if he’s not an employee he can still be an agent. Someone doesn’t know his agency law.

[Kumioko]

WMF Spies are everywhere. I don't know what they put in the koolaid, but the Encyclopedia anyone can edit has turned into a cult.

[Smiley]

WMF Spies are everywhere. I don't know what they put in the koolaid, but the Encyclopedia anyone can edit has turned into a cult.

Blasphemer!

Gotta blame it on my Jimbo juice, baby...

[Vigilant]

Removing reliable sources from Wikipedia would be like removing experimental reproducibility from science.

It would remove one of the few primary feedback controls.

[DanMurphy]

Longer quote from Wikimedia's Movement Strategy Process Meta Liaison Szymon Grabarczuk. This is one of their oldest and most favorite gaslighting games, borrowed from Lewis Carroll.

I feel it's against my freedom to label me as a WMF representative in this case. This is how unhealthy distinctions us vs. them arise. If Fram was a pl.wikipedia admin and was banned, I'd be perceived as being totally "on the side" of the community. And if it was about Wikimedia Polska grantmaking, I'd be also perceived as a volunteer and community member, because WMPL grantmaking is 100% grassrooted. But when I instruct WMPL staff to do something, then I act as the board member and one of staff supervisors. You see? I wear multiple hats and (WMF) shouldn't be a label.

All the animals in the barnyard are equal, said the wolf.

[Vigilant]

https://m.facebook.com/szymon.grabarczuk

Vice chair of wmpl

[Poetlister]

If all this were happening on the Polish Wikipedia, nobody at the WMF in San Francisco would know or care.#

[Vigilant]

Some of the recommendations make it clear that the WMF is moving towards a social media site. They want users to tag themselves so they can be sorted

[mendaliv]

Some of the recommendations make it clear that the WMF is moving towards a social media site. They want users to tag themselves so they can be sorted

It’s what happens when you hire in that Silicon Valley environment. They need to fire everyone and hire all librarians/archivists. And lawyers, of course.

[Vigilant]

There’s also talk of quotas for WMF organizations.

Same thing is true of recommendation #4 which would impose a 40%:40%:20% quota on "all governing bodies of the Foundation and its stakeholders" so that 40% are male, 40% are female, and 20% are " community members from various age groups; with disabilities; of varying language groups; from indigenous communities, the LGBT community, various racial and ethnic communities; of different socio-economic levels, etc."

I predict the number of people reporting to be blind in one eye, transgendered, Inuit, Cherokee speaking Wikipedians will increase exponentially.

[mendaliv]

Oh my god almighty.

I hope WMF intends to provide litigation support (i.e., money) when someone gets excluded due to quotas.

[eagle]

Since the discussion has broadened beyond just the Universal Code of Conduct to some of the Working Group recommendations, I have started a new thread at: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=10607
Thanks for this great discussion.

[Capeo]

There’s also talk of quotas for WMF organizations.

Same thing is true of recommendation #4 which would impose a 40%:40%:20% quota on "all governing bodies of the Foundation and its stakeholders" so that 40% are male, 40% are female, and 20% are " community members from various age groups; with disabilities; of varying language groups; from indigenous communities, the LGBT community, various racial and ethnic communities; of different socio-economic levels, etc."

I predict the number of people reporting to be blind in one eye, transgendered, Inuit, Cherokee speaking Wikipedia a will increase exponentially.

Exactly. How stupid can they be? Not to mention, look at some more of those recommendations. They literally toss any semblance of reliable academic sources out the window and invite editors to synthesis, be pretend researchers, from any primary source that is viewed as underrepresented in academia. This includes making editor “advocacy” groups.

The recommendations would move WP from being a tertiary source of secondary knowledge that, by definition, is always a little behind the times, to a social media wikia that is filled with amateur, advocacy cruft. I mean, that’s a constant battle already but this would give policy backing to that fight, and such a policy would have to remove many of the most basic WP policies to achieve it. You won’t just have people pretending to be part of an underrepresented population. You’ll have people creating crap blogs and claiming them as reliable sources.

[Poetlister]

I don't think it's that the WMF wants Wikipedia to be a social media site as such. It wants to attract editors who like social media sites by giving the illusion that it is such a site. Also, it may hope to glean useful information about editors, which it might then sell to advertisers.

[Vigilant]

https://m.facebook.com/szymon.grabarczuk

Vice chair of wmpl

https://www.upwork.com/o/profiles/users ... 9df17726c/

Polish Lawyer and outreacher for the Sum of All Knowledge

As a geeky lawyer, I'm familiar with open/free content and public policies on the fields related to, mainly but not exclusively, limitations and exceptions to copyright. In spare time, I've been liaising within the amorphic community of Wikimedians and designing information architecture on Wikipedia, and thus gained a perspective on knowledge management. This led me to my strategy-related positions. I'm an ENTP and I feel pretty good about that.

Dude.
You are the saddest lawyer I’ve ever seen.
You charge $17.50/hour?
All of your relevant experience is in wiki land so you understand “knowledge management”, whatever the fuck that actually means.

[Randy from Boise]

Yeah, but that's 67.55 zloty/hour!!!

RfB


P.S. A native speaker of Bureaucratese: "...I've been liaising within the amorphic community of Wikimedians and designing information architecture on Wikipedia..."

[rhindle]

People who bring up their Myers/Briggs do not inspire a lot of confidence IMO.

[Vigilant]

People who bring up their Myers/Briggs do not inspire a lot of confidence IMO.

Quackery that makes me feel good about myself.

I’ve also noticed that his non WMF nickname is a hardcore Tolkien fanboy reference.
I suspect that we’re only days away from finding his fursona.