Two good posts. Bear in mind though that there is also a half-way house solution, whereby contributors would identify to the Foundation, but remain at liberty to use a pseudonymous user name.
Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community roles (as indeed it is today). Andreas On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > What you're describing sounds a lot like Citizendium, which is about as > much of a failure as it's possible to get in the crowdsourcing world. Users > who were told they couldn't contribute unless they turned over their > real-life details mostly just opted to not sign up. The ones who did sign > up found themselves mercilessly sorted by an imposed pseudo-meritocracy of > real-life credentials, and what's left now is a a handful of "editors" who > rule now-empty topic kingdoms. > > As far as safety, knowing what I know about the number of violent threats > and libelous statements that are directed at Wikipedians quite regularly > (and to which, I think it could be argued, female editors can > be disproportionately subjected), I don't think there's much ground to > stand on when it comes to assuring people that somehow they'll be *more *safe > when the people who hate them have access to their real names, phone > numbers, and addresses. I mean, I see how you could come to the conclusion > that anonymity gives the trolls another weapon to use against the > non-trolls, but unless you first do something about the threats, etc, > you're going to have a hell of a time convincing anyone it's in their best > interest to give the people threatening them their name and home address. > Keeping ourselves as safe as possible is not a "game" we play for fun; it's > literally a survival strategy when you know there are people out there > trying to physically harm Wikipedians. > > Rather than forcing contributors to give up their personal details in > exchange for being allowed to edit, why not focus on strengthening the > harassment policies and the WMF's relationships with law enforcement, and > maybe create relationships with some counselling services, such that anyone > who makes another editor feels threatened or harassed is no longer welcome, > and anyone who is threatened or harassed is completely supported? > > > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Sylvia Ventura > <sylvia.vent...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I command Sarah, Sarah, Anne and few other women and men commenting on >> this list for their tireless work trying to move the needle. I wish I had >> seen more movement/women coming forward and stepping up – but I would not >> be surprised if many of us were…. uncomfortable. I know I am. >> >> or simply burned out … which seems to be the case. >> >> >> >> I had to think long and hard about writing this. Sarah, once again is >> trying to be constructive by creating momentum and a page >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/Policy_revolution to capture >> and focus conversations. I think it's a great initiative but I also think >> the problem we're dealing with is more systemic and might need >> a tougher conversation. >> >> >> How can we 'speak openly' in a forum like "Policy Revolution" when a few >> of us are playing a different game – most folks here use their real >> identities, take their contribution work at heart, we know who we are. But >> then we have the Ghosts, those hiding behind the cloak of “Privacy” >> (perverse effect of a well-meant policy I am sure) while >> trolling, harassing, messing with images/content with impunity. If we are >> serious about creating a broader more sustainable more representative >> participation to the projects the WMF folks (those with some level of >> mandate) need to seriously revise the community’s rules of engagement and >> stand behind it. >> >> >> >> A have been sitting on this note (below) for a while, I understand the >> need for privacy in the context of political/individual/speech freedom and >> to insure personal safety in some cases. This group is composed of some of >> the smartest people on the planet, we surely can come up with some >> mechanism to protect those who need protection (anonymity) while creating a >> healthy, open, constructive, environment. >> >> >> >> == NB: this was written shortly after Hersfold resignation, focuses on >> harassment but its relevant to all questionable behavior.== >> >> >> Accidental troll policy >> >> >> >> My ID was recently deleted on Meta-Wiki, the reason given was: wait for >> it… Vandalism. Little than I knew I had breached protocol – as a newbie I >> had created a page on Meta and had clearly broken the rules. Or was it, >> since then, I learned that your individual history (been banned/suspended, >> etc…) determines your capacity of progressing in the ranks of WP – so this >> might have been purely accidental or not. >> >> >> >> But back to my point, after being notified of my ban, as a good citizen >> and a steward of open-culture I felt it was my duty to get educated. I >> checked the Wikipedia’s user policy. What I found was lengthy, detailed but >> overall clear. Except for a portion that was particularly unsettling. The >> one about “Use of Real Name and Harassment”. [[excerpt: use of real name >> may make a contributor more vulnerable to issues such as >> harassment<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment>, >> both on and off Wikipedia]] >> >> >> >> After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator >> Hersfold<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfold>in yesterday’s Signpost >> I can’t let go of the idea that the policy might >> actually enable the very problem it is trying to avoid <harassment> by >> perpetuating the culture of obscurity and by allowing trolls to hide behind >> anonymity. >> >> >> >> In an era where information is a commodity, where online traceability is >> child’s play for anyone with rudimentary tech skills I can’t imagine that >> concealing one’s real-life identity on Wikipedia will minimize the >> incidence of harassment. The reasons for >> Hersfold<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfold>resignation againshed a >> gloomy light on this. Granted, arbitration is a “hot seat” to hold >> but unless we are willing to put in place a “witness protection program” >> style for wikipedians involved in conflict resolution, it will be >> impossible to prevent this from happening again. >> >> >> >> So the question I’m thorn with is who’s really benefiting from the >> “Privacy - no Real name Policy”? The folks trying to do their job sensibly >> and seeking some distance between their work on Wikipedia and their >> personal lives/families/jobs or the trolls that haven’t yet found that >> clear boundary and are, by design, allowed to create a toxic and >> unwelcoming environment. >> >> >> >> Looking at it from the other end. What if the system promoted total >> transparency? Where everyone in it is really who they say they are. A >> system where real-life ID is tied to the online work, no place to hide, >> where the very act of signing up and becoming a wikipedian is a pledge for >> civility, respect and trust. Where personal status is a currency based on >> both hard and soft skills, (number/quality of contributions and the manner >> in which we interact with each other). Maybe you get to play anonymously >> for a while but if you want to get serious and become a ‘ranked’ wikipedian >> tell us who you are. >> >> >> I honestly don’t know how much implementation of a formal vetting system >> would violate the foundation’s DNA – and it might - but knowing what >> mechanisms/policies facilitate harassment will help us find solutions to >> prevent it from perpetuating. In this case ‘anonymity’ could be a weak >> link. >> >> >> How about associating a Wikipedia ID to a mobile phone number at sign up, >> send the access code and instructions to new users before they get started >> – à la craigslist. If this is not acceptable let’s find another way to >> tie in real-life ID with Wikipedia’s ID and keep the community healthy, >> truly open and safe. Who do we risk losing by getting to know who we are? >> The trolls – yes. because there will be no place to hide and play big bad >> wolf. Who do we attract? Potentially everyone that has once considered >> contributing to Wikipedia but found it to be unsafe and off-putting. >> >> >> Some might argue: “look, this is not a social club, this is how we’ve >> always done it, grow a skin or move along”. I’d say: totally agree, >> institutional knowledge is important, let’s keep the good - and there is >> plenty - and shed the bad. Wikipedia has evolved greatly in the past 10 >> years and so has the world, and general expectations for social >> interactions have changed. We are steadily losing some and still missing >> many voices on Wikipedia. Clearly harassment is not the chief cause, but >> since *people* are the most important part (asset) of Wikipedia, we need to >> start developing a much-needed social protocol and insure the free flow of >> knowledge over ethos. >> >> >> >> Sylvia >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
