On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Erik Moeller <e...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> The Terms of Use prohibit harassment, which is the same word that's > used to characterize the behaviors the friendly space policy > prohibits. So at least in that respect the two are already somewhat > analogous. > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities Come on Erik, the mere fact that the Terms of Use mention the word "harassment" in the sentence "Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism; and Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users." is a very weak straw to cling to here! The Terms of Use section most closely related to our discussion is actually this one: ---o0o--- *Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes* - Posting child pornography or any other content that violates applicable law concerning child pornography; - Posting or trafficking in obscene material that is unlawful under applicable law; and - Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law. ---o0o--- This allows editors to introduce everything to the work environment that is allowed in a porn shop. Hence the "hot sex barnstar" in Commons, which if challenged would no doubt be defended with gleeful jeers of NOTCENSORED. The point I have been trying to get across here in this list is that the welcoming attitude to pornography in Wikimedia projects affects *male contributors' mindsets*, making men more likely to be subtly dismissive of women, and making women feel unvalued, depressed and demoralised – with corresponding effects on women's participation. This is not brain surgery. Millions of workplaces reflect this in their workplace rules, but you don't have any equivalent. There is plenty of published research on this; here is an example, describing the effects on both women's and men's state of mind: ---o0o--- Courts that have found a hostile environment as a result of pornography and sexual banter have often cited negative psychological effects of pornography similar to those described in the social science literature. The opinions point to emotional distress, such as fear,37 humiliation,38 and low self-esteem.39 They also indicate that ambient harassment of this type makes it hard for the subjected women to focus on work.40 The court in Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc.41 found that the emotional upset created by this type of harassing behavior, combined with its negative impact on job performance, was sufficient to “alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment.”42 Further, courts have recognized that the prevalence of pornography and sexualized language in the workplace makes it *more difficult for women to * *be viewed professionally by their male coworkers.43 In such environments, * *men are more likely to disrespect and to sexually demean women.*44 In Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co.,45 the court found that in “an environment where women were viewed primarily in terms of women qua women: sexual objects and inferior to men,” a “reasonable woman would find the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment affected by that harassment.”46 The expert in Jenson cited the results of a study that he had conducted,47 which demonstrated that *mere exposure to sexist advertisements made men more likely to view women in the workplace in a sexualized manner and less likely to view them as professionally competent.*48 The court found that this study was probative of the question whether a female employee’s terms and conditions of employment were impacted,49 and it summarized the study’s findings as follows: The results showed that [male] subjects who had been sexually primed selected almost twice as many sexist questions [to ask a female interview candidate] as subjects who had not been primed. The results further showed that men who had been primed moved physically closer to the woman than non-primed males and evaluated the female interviewee in a sexist manner—rating her as “more friendly and less competent.”50 This research lends empirical weight to the idea that a sexualized workplace places a discriminatory burden on female employees.51 http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n2/945/LR102n2BergerParker.pdf ---o0o--- With your very permissive policies and culture you are encouraging male mindsets which according to mainstream scholarship actively undermine and discourage female participation. To be clear, I can't say that I have observed very many cases of men coming onto women in Wikimedia talk pages, but dismissive attitudes and the sorts of superior, smug, hair-splitting contributions that seem to take a perverse pleasure in frustrating a woman contributor are very common. The Foundation goes on and on and on in the press about the gender gap, yet is not prepared to do what every workplace does as a matter of course to facilitate women participating on equal terms. Do you understand why I feel you are not putting your money where your mouth is? Have you read deletion discussions in Commons pertaining to sexual media? Do you understand how difficult it is for women to participate in the climate there, and how strongly the tolerated behaviour discourages female participation? This is a scenario that men are very rarely exposed to: it is the emotional equivalent of being the only man in the audience of a male strip show, populated by drunk middle-aged women out on a hen night. Judging by the evidence, it looks very much like you are either scared to do something about it, because you fear it will alienate a large number of contributors who like the locker room environment just as it is, or you actually want to be the go-to host for that culture because you consider it the Foundation's life blood. > In response to issues with the ethical management of photographs the > WMF Board did in fact pass a resolution specifically about photographs > of identifiable people: > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people > > Erring on the side of conservatism, the Board used language about > "private situations / places". But it calls explicitly for > strengthening and developing the relevant policy on Commons: > You called for that 2 years ago. Trying to get it implemented consistently is like banging your head against the wall. > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people > > There _are_ thoughtful people on Commons who could be engaged > individually to help further develop and refine this policy to > elaborate on ethical issues like the one which started this thread. > And there are thoughtful people on this list who could help drive that > conversation. > Again, doing that is about as pleasurable as banging your head against the wall. You are getting paid for this, we are not. > Similarly, on things like acceptable content in user space, en.wp has > a pretty sophisticated and carefully considered policy which already > prohibits needlessly provocative content, and which could be developed > further to explain how such content can be seen as harassing and > damage an environment where people can work together productively. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages > Baby steps ... It's also worth noting on the subject of Commons that WMF did _not_ > withdraw the Controversial Content resolution from May 2011, only the > personal image hiding feature component thereof. The resolution also > contained other recommendations consistent with reinforcing the > educational scope of Wikimedia Commons: > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content > > "We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active > curation of content, including applying appropriate categorization, > removing media that does not meet existing policies and guidelines for > inclusion, and actively commissioning media that is deemed needed but > missing. We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating > all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining > whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle > of least astonishment in categorization and placement." > Your U-turn on the image filter took all force out of this resolution. I don't see that it has had any impact whatsoever. > <snip> > > Is there a page on Meta already where we're coordinating overall > policy reform issues relating to the gender gap (whether WMF or > community policies) that should be considered? > Yet another talking shop. All that Wikimedians ever do: talk, talk, talk, until the discussion peters out ... and restarts six months later, with no progress made. You know the problem: you start the initiative. You put out a manifesto, with input from women here, and ask the community to sign up to it. The only decisive action I can recall the Foundation taking over the last three years in this general area was locking out Beta M (a bloke with a child pornography conviction who was prominently involved in curating pornographic material on Commons, and solicited nude images from dozens of users), against wails of protest from the Commons community. It's the only time you did something worthy of applause. But you did nothing to address the underlying culture that necessitated your going over the heads of the community. The longer you let it slide, the worse it will get. Andreas
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
