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

Jonathan, I think there's a bit of talking past each other going on. Rehashing details of one of the many dramafest Arbcom cases is not worthwhile. From my viewpoint Sarah hit the nail on the head with "Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many other examples

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

Personally I'm skeptical of our (this mailing list's) ability to reform ArbCom. The candidates who are the most tolerant of harassment and misogyny seem to always be the most popular candidates. Thus the outcome of the ArbCom cases are hardly surprising. Do we even have a slate of candidates that

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

I confess I had too much fun sparring with them yesterday, but had enough and don't feel like responding to last half dozen responses to myself, or those to lots of others who were sympathetic to the views of so many women on Wikipedia. The "arguments" are so much like the harassment we got

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

Jonathan and Fae, I see the disagreement about details as part of the systemic bias. The evidence in question was widely available; one did not have to be a functionary to see it. I looked at it with a view to searching for the holes, because of course it was possible that someone was making

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

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Risker wrote: > But it's gonna take more than "this picture is the same one on Person X's > personal website" to do it for me - because any experienced Wikimedian > knows that "stolen" images from personal websites are constantly showing up

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

FWIW: speaking as a non-functionary who is not aware of what information our functionaries had at the time but used to handle abuse cases like this for a major website (and also briefly worked as an actual skiptracer, using purely legal means) the evidence I dug up on my own I would consider

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

Hi Sarah, I'm not a "functionary" so I haven't seen the evidence - clearly it convinces you, but it did not quite convince the functionaries. Reading the result and for example Yunshui's comment I would simply prefer that the record shows we were not fully convinced by the evidence, rather than

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

It is very tempting to say that. Unfortunately, as functionaries are even more likely to be trolled than just about anyone else on Wikipedia, and almost all of them have been impersonated on multiple places (some of them even on porn sites - seriously), it takes more to persuade them. I speak

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

>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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Gendergap] What is proscription vs. Foundation hiring mediators etc.... Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

Carol, I think you're missing something important here. Aside from the fact that this would cost about $2 million a year, the structure you are proposing would only be providing support for English Wikipedia. (That is a lot more than the budget for the entire global Community Advocacy

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

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. It wasn't a "suggestion". My point, more bluntly, was that there are an awful lot of

Re: [Gendergap] What is proscription vs. Foundation hiring mediators etc.... Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

It seems like every time I ask this question I get vague answers regarding "legal issues" "liability" "can't determine content" "community backlash" etc. Yet under https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use it looks like there is more than enough room for the Foundation to propose and

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

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

Re: [Gendergap] Video Q discussing Arbcom and gender/orientation harassment cases

A transcript of the speech is now available: https://neotarf.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/danielle-citrons-wikicon-online-harassment-speech/ The other links again: https://neotarf.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/danielle-citrons-wikicon-online-harassment-speech-qa/

Re: [Gendergap] Video Q discussing Arbcom and gender/orientation harassment cases

Thank you for doing this work, Neotarf! ~Amanda/Mssemantics On Oct 22, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Neotarf > wrote: A transcript of the speech is now available: https://neotarf.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/danielle-citrons-wikicon-online-harassment-speech/ The

Re: [Gendergap] Video Q discussing Arbcom and gender/orientation harassment cases

My pleasure. The first time I did one of these, it was with hearing-impaired in mind. These are very time-consuming, but every time I do one, I am reminded again of how lucky I am to be able to hear. There does not seem to be one standard location for posting these. I see Jimmy's 2014

Re: [Gendergap] What is proscription vs. Foundation hiring mediators etc.... Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

On 10/22/2015 7:36 PM, Risker wrote: Carol, I think you're missing something important here. Aside from the fact that this would cost about $2 million a year, the structure you are proposing would only be providing support for English Wikipedia. First, even as a radical decentralist friendly

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

I was directly interviewed for this article but my contributions were scrapped. I have Emma's email and I would be happy to reach out to her if you'd like to list a set of uniform "corrections"? No guarantee she'd be able to change them but it's a start if you'd like? Sent from my iPhone - please

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

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

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

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

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

I'm pretty sure it was at least the year before, though I could be wrong. I don't agree that arbcom is irrelevant to WP editors generally speaking. Neither do I, because it wasn't a claim I was making, although perhaps I could have been clearer in my wording and said that there is a

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

I'm pretty sure it was at least the year before, though I could be wrong. I don't agree that arbcom is irrelevant to WP editors generally speaking. Arbcom has a significant effect on culture, which effects everyone, and additionally, many eligible voters who likely don't realize they are

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

Thanks Francesca, It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked for offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the harasser for privacy reasons. As Thryduulf put it "there is no

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

WSC, the evidence as to who posted the porn images was, I would say, conclusive. We nevertheless ended up with a situation in which a man who had been engaged in harassment (much of which was onwiki and had been going on for about a year) was let off the hook, and the harassed woman was banned.