Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[WereSpielChequers]

Kevin,

2014 was the nadir for some raw editing numbers on English Wikipedia, on at
least one count numbers have been rising since then
.
The problem in estimating the electorate is that our best metrics are
unrelated to the arbcom voting criteria, so for example we know that the
number of editors saving over 100 edits per month in mainspace is up in
2015, September's figure was 15.3% up on 2014 and the highest September
figure since 2010 .
>5 edits is more volatile, some months even show a small decline since the
same month in 2014. People entitled to vote is going to be a much larger
group than the >100 edits per month brigade, but I'd be surprised if there
wasn't a correlation between edit count and propensity to vote.


On 23 October 2015 at 02:21, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election
> had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't
> have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
>  wrote:
> >> Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm
> >> still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half
> >> a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of
> >> editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last
> >> year.
> >
> >
> > Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly,
> although I
> > rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect
> the
> > oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do
> > the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to
> > speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion
> amongst
> > themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution
> > process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care
> who
> > care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a
> greater
> > proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote.
> >
> > Daniel Case
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Kevin Gorman]

WSC -

Though true that 2014 appears to have been the nadir for many editing
metrics, even if you set the bar really high, I'd be impressed if you
could find any relevant metric that was only 60% of what it was the
year before.  A lot more went in to dismal arbcom turnout than simply
the fact that 2014 was our lowest year for most metrics.  (I say that
not just based on the metrics, but on dozens of private comments I've
received from parties ranging from those who knew they coud vote but
didn't, knew they could vote and did, and sitting functionaries.  Yes,
my inbox is painful this week.)

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Neotarf  wrote:
> It might be interesting to look at when the 500-edit requirement was put in
> place for certain articles that were targeted by off-site editing groups,
> and whether that correlates with anything.  It looks like the number of new
> articles peaked some time ago.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:45 AM, WereSpielChequers
>  wrote:
>>
>> Kevin,
>>
>> 2014 was the nadir for some raw editing numbers on English Wikipedia, on
>> at least one count numbers have been rising since then. The problem in
>> estimating the electorate is that our best metrics are unrelated to the
>> arbcom voting criteria, so for example we know that the number of editors
>> saving over 100 edits per month in mainspace is up in 2015, September's
>> figure was 15.3% up on 2014 and the highest September figure since 2010. >5
>> edits is more volatile, some months even show a small decline since the same
>> month in 2014. People entitled to vote is going to be a much larger group
>> than the >100 edits per month brigade, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't
>> a correlation between edit count and propensity to vote.
>>
>>
>> On 23 October 2015 at 02:21, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>>>
>>> Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election
>>> had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't
>>> have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Kevin Gorman
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
>>>  wrote:
>>> >> Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm
>>> >> still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half
>>> >> a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of
>>> >> editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last
>>> >> year.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly,
>>> > although I
>>> > rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might
>>> > reflect the
>>> > oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize
>>> > do
>>> > the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so
>>> > to
>>> > speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion
>>> > amongst
>>> > themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution
>>> > process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to
>>> > care who
>>> > care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a
>>> > greater
>>> > proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote.
>>> >
>>> > Daniel Case
>>> >
>>> > ___
>>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

>We have to do something. Suggestion: women coming before the committee could 
>require that certain >committee members not participate.
How about anyone? (As I think your next comment seems to realize)
>We could extend that to any harassment case. Or we could set up a jury system, 
>instead of one fixed >committee, with limited challenges permitted.

Peremptory? Or not?
Daniel Case

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Risker]

On 22 October 2015 at 16:27, Sarah (SV)  wrote:

> Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is asked to excuse themselves
> from a case should do so, within reason.
>

I tend to agree with you on this, Sarah.


>
> But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as sexist should be
> able to require recusal. Otherwise the case is hobbled before it begins.
> Ditto for anyone with concerns about racism or homophobia.
>

I'm a little less certain about this one: if there are five parties to a
case, and everyone decides to brand three different arbitrators as
sexist/racist/homophobic etc, you're down to  nobody.


>
> I would like to see a jury system replace the committee, with small groups
> chosen to resolve particular issues. The committee has not worked for a
> long time. It isn't the fault of any individual or group. It's a
> combination of the way Arbs are nominated and elected, and the way they end
> up cloistered away from the community. It creates a "thin blue line"
> mentality. I would like to see a grassroots approach, at least as an
> experiment.
>
>
That was what RFCs and mediation committees did, although I grant that
their "decisions" were not binding. They fell apart - RFCs because
genuinely uninvolved Wikipedians stopped participating. The Mediation
committee fell apart because there were so few people who were any good at
dispute resolution actually mediating them, and also because mediation
required the "participation agreement" of long lists of supposed parties.
(I was once listed as a "party" for a mediation on an article where I made
one edit to remove poop vandalism.)

There's no evidence at all that jury systems are any more fair or accurate
or impartial or unbiased than any other dispute resolution systems.  (A
quick look at the number of convicted prisoners who have subsequently been
exonerated proves my point.) Add to that the simple fact that "volunteer"
pools of jurors are, simply by dint of numbers, going to be made up of the
same types of people who are already arbitrators/functionaries/admins (or
potentially people who were rejected for those responsibilities because
they were unsuitable), and that compelling participation of people who have
deliberately NOT wanted to participate in such activities is more likely to
result in those individuals leaving the project entirely rather than making
great decisions (other than the obvious "this is stupid, ban them all so I
can get back to my categorization"). In fact, I suspect that a jury system
made up of conscripted jurors would actually result in much harsher
sanctions all around. There are some who argue that would not be a bad
thing.

Risker/Anne
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Sarah (SV)]

Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is asked to excuse themselves
from a case should do so, within reason.

But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as sexist should be
able to require recusal. Otherwise the case is hobbled before it begins.
Ditto for anyone with concerns about racism or homophobia.

I would like to see a jury system replace the committee, with small groups
chosen to resolve particular issues. The committee has not worked for a
long time. It isn't the fault of any individual or group. It's a
combination of the way Arbs are nominated and elected, and the way they end
up cloistered away from the community. It creates a "thin blue line"
mentality. I would like to see a grassroots approach, at least as an
experiment.

Sarah

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>
> >We have to do something. Suggestion: women coming before the committee
> could require that certain >committee members not participate.
>
> How about *anyone*? (As I think your next comment seems to realize)
>
> >We could extend that to any harassment case. Or we could set up a jury
> system, instead of one fixed >committee, with limited challenges permitted.
> Peremptory? Or not?
>
> Daniel Case
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Sarah (SV)]

Some ideas:

*People are elected to the committee for two years, and not allowed to
stand again for another five. No more tranches.

*Arbs are not given access to CU or oversight. This will weed out people
who nominate themselves to gain access to the tools. It will decrease the
amount of work the committee can do; should increase their work rate on
cases; and will decrease the "them and us" mentality.

*Arbs must excuse themselves if asked, including from trying to influence
cases behind the scenes, unless the request for recusal is clearly silly.

*Most Arb discussion must take place in public. The mailing list should be
used only in exceptional cases involving privacy. But most privacy issues
should be left to functionaries. The mailing list should have a functionary
as clerk to ensure that it isn't misused.

*Functionaries would not be chosen by ArbCom.

*Abolish the workshops. They're used to continue the dispute or harassment.

*We should maintain a small list of experienced editors who are willing to
do jury duty. Anyone brought before the committee can request a jury
"trial". Jurors would be chosen randomly. Any juror involved with a party
should say no, and the next editor on the list would be picked. The parties
would then have the right to object to a certain number.

*Cases must be resolved within a much shorter time frame, or closed as
unresolved.

*The Foundation should be asked to pay for an expert in dispute resolution
to offer regular classes on Skype for any Wikipedian who wants to sign up.

The above wouldn't solve everything, but I think it would help.

Sarah



On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Risker  wrote:

>
> On 22 October 2015 at 16:27, Sarah (SV)  wrote:
>
>> Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is asked to excuse themselves
>> from a case should do so, within reason.
>>
>
> I tend to agree with you on this, Sarah.
>
>
>>
>> But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as sexist should be
>> able to require recusal. Otherwise the case is hobbled before it begins.
>> Ditto for anyone with concerns about racism or homophobia.
>>
>
> I'm a little less certain about this one: if there are five parties to a
> case, and everyone decides to brand three different arbitrators as
> sexist/racist/homophobic etc, you're down to  nobody.
>
>
>>
>> I would like to see a jury system replace the committee, with small
>> groups chosen to resolve particular issues. The committee has not worked
>> for a long time. It isn't the fault of any individual or group. It's a
>> combination of the way Arbs are nominated and elected, and the way they end
>> up cloistered away from the community. It creates a "thin blue line"
>> mentality. I would like to see a grassroots approach, at least as an
>> experiment.
>>
>>
> That was what RFCs and mediation committees did, although I grant that
> their "decisions" were not binding. They fell apart - RFCs because
> genuinely uninvolved Wikipedians stopped participating. The Mediation
> committee fell apart because there were so few people who were any good at
> dispute resolution actually mediating them, and also because mediation
> required the "participation agreement" of long lists of supposed parties.
> (I was once listed as a "party" for a mediation on an article where I made
> one edit to remove poop vandalism.)
>
> There's no evidence at all that jury systems are any more fair or accurate
> or impartial or unbiased than any other dispute resolution systems.  (A
> quick look at the number of convicted prisoners who have subsequently been
> exonerated proves my point.) Add to that the simple fact that "volunteer"
> pools of jurors are, simply by dint of numbers, going to be made up of the
> same types of people who are already arbitrators/functionaries/admins (or
> potentially people who were rejected for those responsibilities because
> they were unsuitable), and that compelling participation of people who have
> deliberately NOT wanted to participate in such activities is more likely to
> result in those individuals leaving the project entirely rather than making
> great decisions (other than the obvious "this is stupid, ban them all so I
> can get back to my categorization"). In fact, I suspect that a jury system
> made up of conscripted jurors would actually result in much harsher
> sanctions all around. There are some who argue that would not be a bad
> thing.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Risker]

On 22 October 2015 at 17:31, Sarah (SV)  wrote:

> Some ideas:
>
> *People are elected to the committee for two years, and not allowed to
> stand again for another five. No more tranches.
>

I'd suggest ensuring that there is not 100% change every year (so keeping
some form of the tranches), because someone's got to be around who has some
experience; realistically, we're starting to see a return to the times
where fewer arbs are completing their full terms and so you're going to get
better than 50% change every year. On the other hand, I agree that
incumbency has been an issue. Suggest a 2  year break; if there's someone
the community thinks is good at the job, they'll never have the chance for
that person to do it again if a 5-year break is required. (And I want you
to think about this...who's going to do the job? It's still going to be a
cruddy job no matter how much is divested from it.)


>
> *Arbs are not given access to CU or oversight. This will weed out people
> who nominate themselves to gain access to the tools. It will decrease the
> amount of work the committee can do; should increase their work rate on
> cases; and will decrease the "them and us" mentality.
>

Not automatically being entitled to hold CU or oversight isn't likely to
change things for arbs - if they were CU or OS beforehand, they'd continue
in those roles while they are on the committee, just as many arbs continue
to edit or carry out routine admin tasks; after all, it's important for
arbs to keep involved in the community as they were before election.  More
useful would be to relieve them of the "responsibility" of selecting CU and
OS, and not granting them automatic access to the tools. The community
should have grown into selecting for those roles 3-5 years ago.   There are
times when the arbs may need access to the CU/OS data (the "Sockpuppetry"
case of earlier this year is a good example), but there are other options
such as written requests to CU/OS for data, or view-only access for
suppressed edits, that should be sufficient.


>
> *Arbs must excuse themselves if asked, including from trying to influence
> cases behind the scenes, unless the request for recusal is clearly silly.
>

While I agree with the intent, we may have a different definition of
"silly" - so perhaps a bit more definitive would be helpful here.
However, I don't think "gaming the system" is nearly as common as some
people would have us believe, and in my experience about 90% of recusal
requests would not have had any adverse effect on the outcome of the case.
Arbitrators could afford to swallow their pride a bit on this.


>
> *Most Arb discussion must take place in public. The mailing list should be
> used only in exceptional cases involving privacy. But most privacy issues
> should be left to functionaries. The mailing list should have a functionary
> as clerk to ensure that it isn't misused.
>

I was going to say, and even started to type, "unless something has really
changed"...but I think something *has* really changed in the last couple of
years.  Even I can see lots of evidence that those off-wiki discussions are
more frequent.  On the other hand, don't think they're all happening on the
mailing list. Skype, hangouts, gchats, smaller circulation personal
emailsjust as likely.  Not much benefit to anyone clerking the list.
Incidentally, the "functionary as clerk" was tried in 2009.  It lasted 2
months. Poor guy nearly died of boredom.


>
> *Functionaries would not be chosen by ArbCom.
>

See above - agree that CU/OS can, with some careful work, be done more
effectively by the community.  A word of warning, though.  Compared to
every other project under the WMF umbrella, we are the most vicious about
elections (RFA) and reappointments. Set hard activity standards, but please
don't require annual reappointment elections or you'll wipe out CU/OS in no
time.  It's pretty much impossible for the community to assess the quality
of work of a CU - it's hard enough for other CUs to assess it.


>
> *Abolish the workshops. They're used to continue the dispute or harassment.
>

Agree.


>
> *We should maintain a small list of experienced editors who are willing to
> do jury duty. Anyone brought before the committee can request a jury
> "trial". Jurors would be chosen randomly. Any juror involved with a party
> should say no, and the next editor on the list would be picked. The parties
> would then have the right to object to a certain number.
>

Does it become a "jury" trial if one of 15 people listed as parties
requests one?  Who decides which "parties" are really parties enough to
have that right?  What happens if none of the "small list of experienced
editors" is willing or able to be available for the period of time that
even a simple case takes?  (Keep in mind there are no simple cases, those
have been dealt with at ANI and AN for years.)



>
> *Cases must be resolved within a much shorter time frame, or closed as
> 

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[WereSpielChequers]

I haven't followed ARBCOM closely enough this year to be quite as scathing
as Risker, but the what little I have seen  is very disappointing.

I haven't been an arb, but I have done jury service, and I'm a fan of the
system. But it relies on conscription to draft people in for a task that
they are literally locked in a room to do. If a case were only an hour or
so of time then I think you could experiment with inviting panels of a
random thirty or so of our three thousand or of most active editors. My
guess is that a random thirty would give you half a dozen who'd respond -
you could tweak the numbers if my guess is out. But I'm not confident that
this would work for cases that require more than a couple of hours
involvement, or that involve personal information and thereby require
"private sessions". I doubt there are sufficient such cases for a jury
system to make a meaningful contribution to the system.

Reforming arbcom is difficult. Influencing its election rather less so, I
haven't done a voters guide for a few years but I'd commend doing so to
anyone who has the time to thoroughly check the candidates.

On reform, I rather like the panel system, not because a panel of five arbs
will make much better choices than a dozen arbs, but because only having
five arbs on each panel would reduce the workload, hopefully to something
manageable. A lighter load gives the possibility of more people considering
arbcom, and even of arbs engaging more with the community on non arb stuff.

Another option is to invest in training arbs and functionaries. Both on
technical training - if Sarah and Kevin are right re the Lightbreather case
then it may just be that they didn't know how to get or read the evidence;
Also they could be given the sort of training that UK magistrates go on.
Question to Risker, what sort of training do they currently undertake?



On 22 October 2015 at 22:04, Risker  wrote:

>
> On 22 October 2015 at 16:27, Sarah (SV)  wrote:
>
>> Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is asked to excuse themselves
>> from a case should do so, within reason.
>>
>
> I tend to agree with you on this, Sarah.
>
>
>>
>> But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as sexist should be
>> able to require recusal. Otherwise the case is hobbled before it begins.
>> Ditto for anyone with concerns about racism or homophobia.
>>
>
> I'm a little less certain about this one: if there are five parties to a
> case, and everyone decides to brand three different arbitrators as
> sexist/racist/homophobic etc, you're down to  nobody.
>
>
>>
>> I would like to see a jury system replace the committee, with small
>> groups chosen to resolve particular issues. The committee has not worked
>> for a long time. It isn't the fault of any individual or group. It's a
>> combination of the way Arbs are nominated and elected, and the way they end
>> up cloistered away from the community. It creates a "thin blue line"
>> mentality. I would like to see a grassroots approach, at least as an
>> experiment.
>>
>>
> That was what RFCs and mediation committees did, although I grant that
> their "decisions" were not binding. They fell apart - RFCs because
> genuinely uninvolved Wikipedians stopped participating. The Mediation
> committee fell apart because there were so few people who were any good at
> dispute resolution actually mediating them, and also because mediation
> required the "participation agreement" of long lists of supposed parties.
> (I was once listed as a "party" for a mediation on an article where I made
> one edit to remove poop vandalism.)
>
> There's no evidence at all that jury systems are any more fair or accurate
> or impartial or unbiased than any other dispute resolution systems.  (A
> quick look at the number of convicted prisoners who have subsequently been
> exonerated proves my point.) Add to that the simple fact that "volunteer"
> pools of jurors are, simply by dint of numbers, going to be made up of the
> same types of people who are already arbitrators/functionaries/admins (or
> potentially people who were rejected for those responsibilities because
> they were unsuitable), and that compelling participation of people who have
> deliberately NOT wanted to participate in such activities is more likely to
> result in those individuals leaving the project entirely rather than making
> great decisions (other than the obvious "this is stupid, ban them all so I
> can get back to my categorization"). In fact, I suspect that a jury system
> made up of conscripted jurors would actually result in much harsher
> sanctions all around. There are some who argue that would not be a bad
> thing.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Risker]

On 22 October 2015 at 18:09, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> 
>


> Another option is to invest in training arbs and functionaries. Both on
> technical training - if Sarah and Kevin are right re the Lightbreather case
> then it may just be that they didn't know how to get or read the evidence;
> Also they could be given the sort of training that UK magistrates go on.
> Question to Risker, what sort of training do they currently undertake?
>
>
In theory, the community selects as arbitrators individuals whom it
believs have already demonstrated sound judgment in handling disputes
or other problematic situations. In past years, it has had a plethora of
choices; however, as the pool of people who are pretty good at this sort of
stuff has diminished - either the editors who are good at it are not
interested in doing it full-time, or they simply don't exist in the numbers
they used to - we've seen an increasing number of arbitrators being
selected who may be fine Wikipedians but they're just not really suited, or
they've been carefully building their careers to this point.  Being able to
make decisions is important. One of the best arbitrators Wikipedia ever had
was Wizardman - and he was also one of the least appreciated, despite the
fact that he was almost always on time, his proposed decisions were bang
on, and there was almost never any chit-chat in the background about the
cases he wrote.

The reality is that there's no training provided to new arbitrators. In
years past, we had developed an orientation program (I do not know if it is
still in existence) that went through very basic stuff.  But you have to
keep in mind that historically, as far back as I can remember, most "new"
arbitrator candidates campaign on the idea of "changing" arbcom in various
ways.  The problem is that almost none of them want to change it in the
same way, and it gets deadlocked just the way that things get deadlocked
onwiki.  There is one topic that one or two arbitrators have been chasing
for a long, long time, but have been unwilling to bend in their own
personal vision so it has never been effectively resolved.  I worked very
hard during my last term to try to get out of the mailing list system and
move to a case-based CRM system  but it was adamantly opposed by one
colleague and most of the rest simply didn't care enough about the issue to
come out one way or the other - so arbcom is still stuck in that
same circle.  In other words, Arbcom does in a lot of ways reflect the
community it "serves" - amateurs at what they're discussing, with
difficulty achieving consensus on any kind of change, and with the same
sort of problems of dominating editors turning off those who have no strong
opinions on matters.

Risker/Anne
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm
still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half
a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of
editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last
year.


Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly, although I 
rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect the 
oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do 
the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to 
speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion amongst 
themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution 
process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care who 
care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a greater 
proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote.


Daniel Case 



___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Risker]

Ah yes, let's have a jury system. Except that nobody can be compelled to
serve (what would we do? desysop someone? block them from adding content?),
and the [type of] people most likely to volunteer are...well, arbcom. Or
the arbcom candidates whom the community had already rejected.

Please no more speaking of juries. I've been on juries, and I've been on
Arbcom. I can guarantee you that juries are absolutely no better, and are
even less likely to look at evidence than arbcom is.  I don't think Arbcom
is wonderful; I think this year's arbcom has lost its way in a manner that
I can't recall seeing since 2007-08.  But I have zero faith that, on a
website where better than 70% of active contributors never take part in the
"meta" part of the site, that "jury duty" would do anything positive. I do,
however, believe it would have a negative impact on retaining active
contributors who have no taste for the drama.

Risker


On 22 October 2015 at 16:10, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>
> >We have to do something. Suggestion: women coming before the committee
> could require that certain >committee members not participate.
>
> How about *anyone*? (As I think your next comment seems to realize)
>
> >We could extend that to any harassment case. Or we could set up a jury
> system, instead of one fixed >committee, with limited challenges permitted.
> Peremptory? Or not?
>
> Daniel Case
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Kevin Gorman]

Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election
had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't
have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
 wrote:
>> Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm
>> still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half
>> a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of
>> editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last
>> year.
>
>
> Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly, although I
> rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect the
> oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do
> the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to
> speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion amongst
> themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution
> process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care who
> care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a greater
> proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote.
>
> Daniel Case
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Risker]

I'm going to bring this thread back to its original topic.  I did some
talking and some digging tonight, and it seems to be time to pull up a few
relevant links.  It's pretty obvious that Community Advocacy is working on
harassment issues, including gender-based harassment; I understand a blog
post is imminent, as is a serious effort at gathering data from the
community.  In the interim:

Reminder of commitment and work that is underway with Community Advocacy -
I  have been assured that it has continued despite Philippe's having left
the WMF:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Community_discussion_on_harassment_reporting#Endorsements

Some of the research they have gathered and reviewed - and maybe some of
this will be useful for communities directly as well:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Online_harassment_resource_guide

And more research and citations:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Advocacy/Citations_on_Harassment_and_Behavioral_Issues


There's this belief that either the WMF or Arbcom can control the behaviour
of people on every one of Wikipedia's 20 million pages. It isn't gonna
happen no matter what.

Risker/Anne
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Neotarf]

If the editing metrics are still up, could this a reflect a shift in the
type of user to coordinated offsite editing.  Judging by the huge amount of
interest in a certain obscure IdeaLab proposal, we could be looking at a
new editing paradigm.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election
> had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't
> have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
>  wrote:
> >> Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm
> >> still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half
> >> a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of
> >> editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last
> >> year.
> >
> >
> > Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly,
> although I
> > rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect
> the
> > oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do
> > the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to
> > speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion
> amongst
> > themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution
> > process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care
> who
> > care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a
> greater
> > proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote.
> >
> > Daniel Case
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

>(Minor quibbles: Eric is not an admin, and the New York Times piece was not 
>written by a NYT reporter. Corrections possible?)

I would also that the “lists” referred to were in fact the category pages, a 
distinction that I allow may be lost outside of the project but means something 
to us (That whole thing could easily have been avoided with a sterner reminder 
to use the {{distinguished subcategory}} template in the process of sorting. My 
$0.02).

Daniel Case___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap