I doubt very much whether anyone who has been paying attention to this thread still thinks it's about me. The problems with arbcom have been very public since at least the 2015 Wikiconference USA. [1] But JJ Marr does have a point. The Arbcom does label this a "finding of fact", although the WMF is probably more likely to regard it as a 'poorly written personal opinion' of the arbitrators who signed their names to it, at least from a legal standpoint. But the arbitration committee does not have any standard for "fact", as WP does with BLP. The arbitration committee, with a few exceptions, is mostly very young and inexperienced with life and work, and has no training at all with arbitration or dispute resolution. The only tool they are given as part of their remit to resolve disputes is to publicly humiliate and embarrass volunteers who have given their time to the project.
The result is that anyone who has ever objected to harassment on Wikipedia has been driven off, either by arbitration or by doxing. One of the problems is this non-consensual sodomy thing that's making the rounds. This kind of talk is very normalized in some areas of Wikipedia, for instance in the back rooms of the Signpost when I was there it was a standing joke. It's one thing though if consenting adult men are using Wikipedia to hook up with each other, but the problem is that older men are telling younger men that this is the way to impress women, and the younger men believe them, they just don't know. Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line. If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms with this. [1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Danielle_Citron_speaks_at_WikiConference_USA_2015 On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Johanna-Hypatia Cybeleia < johanna.hypa...@gmail.com> wrote: > JJ Marr, I hate to be the one who walks into a conversation late and asks > "What are you talking about?" —especially since you're going to stop > talking about it now, but... I searched all through the archives of this > list in my mail, but so far am none the wiser... > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:10 PM, JJ Marr <jjm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about >> this? Just a suggestion. >> > > > -- > __________________________________ > I have been woman > for a long time > beware my smile > > --Audre Lorde > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
