On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > > This would involve incredible overhead on the Foundation's role. It also wouldn't provide any real protection for the individuals being harassed. Let's be clear here; there are really two types of harassment we should be concerned about. The first is, simply, illegal; where such harassment occurs, and a complaint to the police results, the WMF has procedures in place to provide (for example) IP addresses and other identifying information on receipt of a valid request from a court, and these can then percolate back through ISPs and such to identify the person responsible for the statements or actions. All very simple, all very well-handled. I'd argue our failing here is not in not having a mechanism for illegal harassment, but simply a greater societal issue; internet harassment is, while a crime, something with few benefits for the police to prosecute. We can't solve for that; we could reduce the barrier a bit by cutting out the middle man and being able to provide the police with the real-world identity of contributors, sure, but again, that's going to be a ton of work. The second type of harassment is motivated by, well, John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.[1] Some people, to be cynical, behave well because people see and judge them by their behaviour. As a result, when you get anonymity or pseudonymity - more specifically, a type of pseudonymity that does not overlap with their real-world reputation, or reputation in other domains, you get people misbehaving, because their actions and the consequences of those actions cannot follow them back to a reputation they care about. It's as simple as that. Merely knowing that someone, somewhere, knows who they are is not going to get these people to act differently; there is no immediate action/reaction interaction between "them misbehaving" and "this biting them on the backside". [1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community roles (as > indeed it is today). > Then the change is...? > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
