Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Theo10011]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Sylvia Ventura wrote:

> Hi Theo, thank you for documenting my experience on meta, clearly a
> rookie mistake on my part, I hadn't revisited that page since and just
> now saw Sarah S note. I'm not giving up but I'm still figuring out the
> best way/area to contribute. I'll definitely reach out for guidance in
> navigating WMF  :)
>

Glad to hear it Ma'am.

Regards
Theo
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Sylvia Ventura]

Hi Theo, thank you for documenting my experience on meta, clearly a
rookie mistake on my part, I hadn't revisited that page since and just
now saw Sarah S note. I'm not giving up but I'm still figuring out the
best way/area to contribute. I'll definitely reach out for guidance in
navigating WMF  :)

G. White had a good/well articulated point too, specifically the <<..
framing our response as a whole-of-organisation *technology*, *policy
and curation project *that is needed as a result of organisational
growth. >>  For a global organization of this scale that’s built
primarily on people & technology, the demands on a 170-employee must
be enormous, so a holistic approach including technology, policy and
curation is sensible. I can’t speak for the technology part I have
little expertise there, but the reason I started this topic was to
make the case for the “people’s” part – specifically around
*accountability* and *representation* (women and others). This idea is
not novel, far from it, but in my sense the latter is highly
contingent on the former. it would seem this is a small part of a
larger conversation. :)




Message: 2
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 09:59:33 +0530
From: Theo10011 
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects

Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Hi Sylvia

I share some of your concerns and agree with your insightful observations.
My comments are inline-

On Sat, May 11, 2013, Sylvia Ventura  wrote:

> Hi Theo, thank you for the thorough response. You bring up very valid
> points, specially around privacy standards across countries/continents with
> a very different political and cultural makeup. And not something likely to
> change unless supremacy over wikipedia is given to one specific entity or
> state (nah). And losing our Freedom of Speech is not up for question.
>
> A coupe of thoughts on the comment < anonymity>> that might have been the case in the early days, but as more of
> our 'real lives' activity migrates online and replaces the physical world;
> internet has become the 'repository' of knowledge, but also goods and
> services, it's increasingly the place where 'untangle assets' get traded
> and human interactions take place
> (social/professional/commercial/financial/legal…). As we create our online
> trail, so is our personal profile. It's just a matter of time before we
> access everything about anyone with a simple email address (Google already
> pulls chunks of info from linkedin twitter, quora, etc to feed your G+ ID …
> and so does rapportive on email) It's already possible to spot the fake
> (ID) from the real.
>

Yes, agreed. Those are some smart observations. I generally agree with your
concerns above and also fear that as corporations get larger, our privacy,
and its value might be getting smaller. As more devices get networked
together, our digital footprint increases several folds- our phones,
televisions, PCs and the information retained in them, all converge at some
point. From a privacy stand-point, the future does seem to have a bleak
outlook.

I only have a minor disagreement with the last statement. As Thomas already
pointed out, merely spotting a fake ID doesn't really have the same
limitations. The entire system is predicated on the idea that the user in
question chooses to be honest. The system is only effective for those who
choose to be bound by it. A user can choose to provide a false email
address, a false name, or a completely fictitious identity, and the only
way to discern would be to physically visit them and ask to see their
papers - which seems an even more draconian interpretation of the original
thought.


>
> More and more you see these "vetting" mechanisms use cross pollination of
> personal data  (i.e. signing up to Airbnb to book room with your Facebook
> account or google account). As far as anonymity is concerned I think we're
> beyond the 'point of no return'.  This if from a North American perspective
> of course, but Europe will soon join us with different levels of
> implementation (the trade off is always Access vs Privacy and that's a
> though sell), and so will the rest of the planet. This sounds a bit
> Orwellian and a bit depressing I agree, and that's why it is SO VERY
> important to get Wikipedia and sister projects to thrive and grow and be a
> strong space, repository of human knowledge, human history, representing *
> all* voices.
>
>
An insightful thought. We do trade ease vs. privacy more and more; perhaps
not directly related, but we do have a unified login across all projects
and languages - one login can be used automatically across all Wikimedia
projects. And now, we

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[G. White]

Reading what people have said on this and the previous thread and bearing
in mind Sarah’s request for actionable ideas about the Commons problem that
sparked these threads, I make a suggestion below about what this
organisation could do to have an impact.


This is bigger than Gender Gap - as various people including Russavia and
the two Sarahs have said before. Bigger in terms of who it affects (women
and others too); bigger in terms of needing a organisation wide effort to
have an effect. I see it as an organisational problem and that means
individuals, however passionate, can have little effect without an
organisational strategy to "change workplace behaviour" (if you understand
editors to be "workers"), so that people of good will can get on with it.

The policy under discussion should cover the whole Wiki project but
especially Commons, where workload and categorisation problems add to
policy compliance problems. Evidently, we have the means to get the policy
going. Policies, however, only inform practice. They are not practice
itself. To produce change we need to identify what we are doing that
contributes to the problem and change that.

Is suggest framing our response as a whole-of-organisation
*technology*, *policy
and curation project *that is needed as a result of organisational growth.
Then:

1. *Write *the policy, including the references to safe work places and
adherence to the educational goal, taking account of other best practice
policies in other workplaces;

2. *Align* it with the mission and other legal requirements such as privacy;

3. *Reform* the Commons software;

4.  *Implement* the software and the policy.


*The first task* seems to be already underway - with the Board, the meta
page and this group contributing.

*The second task* means looking into the related legal issues and
especially emphasising the overall educational goal. (Every project,
Wikimedia included, is entitled to its goal and scope; every worker is
entitled to safety.)


*The third task* – reforming the software is obviously a big project in
itself but one that I think would help resolve many of the downstream
problems (the bullying, policy breaches and categorisation backlog. The
cataloguing backlog is like the task that libraries are faced with as they
cope with the need to digitise their collections. Such an approach also
intersects with the need identified by User:Multichill (Next generation
categories)to
solve the architecture problem.


This is how the Board and the community together should tackle this
problem. Therefore - what I suggest is that the board request that the WMF
allocate funds specifically to a *whole-of-commons software revamp project*.
This is not the same as the 'image filter' report from the other year, but
the more fundamental issue that MediaWiki is not designed to be a Digital
Asset Management software. Either we need to allocate specific funds to do
that, or we need look at different software entirely. All the discussion of
specific content problems are symptoms of the fact that the software isn't
designed to handle the goal that Commons sets out to achieve.

*
*

*The fourth task* is to implement and the new software and continue
assertively implementing the organisation’s new policy regarding harassment.


*Summary*


**

Overall, we need a change management project with a new piece of software
at its heart - the sort of thing that organisations routinely have to do.
Indeed, the WMF is currently doing one with the Visual Editor. However, it
does need planning: for example, write the policy, align the goals, reform
the software and follow-through. (Organisations often fail at
implementation.)



The objectives would be to:

-institute an appropriate cataloguing system;

-catch up on the backlog of Commons work;

-reset the organisational norms.



Whiteghost.ink


P.S. If it is any consolation, we are just the same as other large
organisations with a mainly male membership - the army, the Catholic
Church, and all-male residential colleges, for example. Constant monitoring
is needed in each such organisation, as repeated and scarcely credible
levels of bullying, harassment and even criminal behaviour flare up or
become entrenched practice. It threatens the overall mission, the
organisation's reputation and the good work of most of its members, as well
of course, as the well-being of some individuals, not all of them women. This
is a behavioural trend that needs constant monitoring and from time to
time,major interventions, such as serious
policy reviews and/or sackings. I have worked with a couple of leaders who
have struggled with this. Each organisation has its own context - the Army
has its enforced aggression, the Church has its enforced celibacy and we
have the internet's anonymity along with no authority over anyone.
___
Gendergap mail

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>   Andreas wrote:
>
>   >At the moment, I believe the only editors required to identify are
> arbitrators and chapter members.
>
>  For the first, no, all functionaries (I had to provide proof of identity
> when I got the oversight bit) as well as arbs have to identify to the
> Foundation.
>

Yes, I forgot. Thanks for the correction.


> Chapter members ... do you mean chapter board members?
>

Chapter membership application forms ask for name and address and require
payment of a membership fee.

Andreas
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Oliver Keyes]

So your suggestion is that to prevent abuse, we only require abusers to
identify with the Foundation? Otherwise wewhat, exactly?

A phrase involving the illegalising of catapults and the subsequent shift
in owner demographics comes to mind, here.


On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Carol Moore DC wrote:

> On 5/9/2013 4:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> That has been my thought as well, for particularly obstreperous editors
> and not just admins.  Those who manage despite various warning and blocks
> to hang on and wreak their havoc editing and behavior wise.  (Not to
> mention suspected registered sock puppets!)
>
> Once they realize that if they really start acting up they will have to
> have to be vetted as a real person, one honestly trying to contribute, they
> might think twice about whether they want to "keep it up" - whatever it is.
>
> Of course, you'd probably have to hire a couple people just to decide who
> gets to contact their user page and tell them "call the office" and why...
>
> As a person with a strong POV on some topics I tell others with strong
> POVs to try to get into the "Wikipedia first" head, which makes it easier
> to edit in light of policy and to step back when you know your POV is
> getting out of control.
>
> This sort of thing might help with that...
>
> carol in dc
>
>
> __**_
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Carol Moore DC]

On 5/9/2013 4:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:


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



That has been my thought as well, for particularly obstreperous editors 
and not just admins.  Those who manage despite various warning and 
blocks to hang on and wreak their havoc editing and behavior wise.  (Not 
to mention suspected registered sock puppets!)


Once they realize that if they really start acting up they will have to 
have to be vetted as a real person, one honestly trying to contribute, 
they might think twice about whether they want to "keep it up" - 
whatever it is.


Of course, you'd probably have to hire a couple people just to decide 
who gets to contact their user page and tell them "call the office" and 
why...


As a person with a strong POV on some topics I tell others with strong 
POVs to try to get into the "Wikipedia first" head, which makes it 
easier to edit in light of policy and to step back when you know your 
POV is getting out of control.


This sort of thing might help with that...

carol in dc

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Theo10011]

Hi Sylvia

I share some of your concerns and agree with your insightful observations.
My comments are inline-

On Sat, May 11, 2013, Sylvia Ventura  wrote:

> Hi Theo, thank you for the thorough response. You bring up very valid
> points, specially around privacy standards across countries/continents with
> a very different political and cultural makeup. And not something likely to
> change unless supremacy over wikipedia is given to one specific entity or
> state (nah). And losing our Freedom of Speech is not up for question.
>
> A coupe of thoughts on the comment < anonymity>> that might have been the case in the early days, but as more of
> our 'real lives' activity migrates online and replaces the physical world;
> internet has become the 'repository' of knowledge, but also goods and
> services, it's increasingly the place where 'untangle assets' get traded
> and human interactions take place
> (social/professional/commercial/financial/legal…). As we create our online
> trail, so is our personal profile. It's just a matter of time before we
> access everything about anyone with a simple email address (Google already
> pulls chunks of info from linkedin twitter, quora, etc to feed your G+ ID …
> and so does rapportive on email) It's already possible to spot the fake
> (ID) from the real.
>

Yes, agreed. Those are some smart observations. I generally agree with your
concerns above and also fear that as corporations get larger, our privacy,
and its value might be getting smaller. As more devices get networked
together, our digital footprint increases several folds- our phones,
televisions, PCs and the information retained in them, all converge at some
point. From a privacy stand-point, the future does seem to have a bleak
outlook.

I only have a minor disagreement with the last statement. As Thomas already
pointed out, merely spotting a fake ID doesn't really have the same
limitations. The entire system is predicated on the idea that the user in
question chooses to be honest. The system is only effective for those who
choose to be bound by it. A user can choose to provide a false email
address, a false name, or a completely fictitious identity, and the only
way to discern would be to physically visit them and ask to see their
papers - which seems an even more draconian interpretation of the original
thought.


>
> More and more you see these "vetting" mechanisms use cross pollination of
> personal data  (i.e. signing up to Airbnb to book room with your Facebook
> account or google account). As far as anonymity is concerned I think we're
> beyond the 'point of no return'.  This if from a North American perspective
> of course, but Europe will soon join us with different levels of
> implementation (the trade off is always Access vs Privacy and that's a
> though sell), and so will the rest of the planet. This sounds a bit
> Orwellian and a bit depressing I agree, and that's why it is SO VERY
> important to get Wikipedia and sister projects to thrive and grow and be a
> strong space, repository of human knowledge, human history, representing *
> all* voices.
>
>
An insightful thought. We do trade ease vs. privacy more and more; perhaps
not directly related, but we do have a unified login across all projects
and languages - one login can be used automatically across all Wikimedia
projects. And now, we have an upcoming initiative whereby remaining
accounts across all projects would be unified under one login(SUL). It
would certainly promote access (which we already have), even force it, but
who knows if we might have traded something for it along the way.

Going back slightly to the original issue you mentioned about Meta. I
looked for your username across meta, and only found this mention[1]. But
it doesn't link to a user account, instead and goes to a red-link in the
main namespace for Slv[2]. I see Sarah also left a message on the
associated talk page without realizing that it wasn't a user talk page.
Now, working off the assumption that this was the issue your encountered,
it only means that you didn't technically create or log-in to your account
on Meta, and instead created an article perhaps. Mediawiki divides things
between namespace and a userspace (lets call it your profile - "user:"). The namespace is reserved for articles only, which on Meta means-
essays, policy pages, stroopwafel addiction pages, discussions pertaining
to multiple projects or languages (more or less). An admin would delete
anything that they deem doesn't fit into the description of the project,
but they hardly ever ban a user outright for that misunderstanding. Meta
community is actually pretty lax and gives more leeway for new users.

The biggest difference between a friendly and a new environment, is
familiarity with other users. Interacting with other users and admins makes
a great deal of difference for new users. I would suggest that you don't
abandon Meta yet, and consider engaging again. As far as Meta goes, if you
ever have

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Thomas Morton]

> A coupe of thoughts on the comment < anonymity>> that might have been the case in the early days, but as more of
> our 'real lives' activity migrates online and replaces the physical world;
> internet has become the 'repository' of knowledge, but also goods and
> services, it's increasingly the place where 'untangle assets' get traded
> and human interactions take place
> (social/professional/commercial/financial/legal…). As we create our online
> trail, so is our personal profile. It's just a matter of time before we
> access everything about anyone with a simple email address (Google already
> pulls chunks of info from linkedin twitter, quora, etc to feed your G+ ID …
> and so does rapportive on email) It's already possible to spot the fake
> (ID) from the real.
>
> More and more you see these "vetting" mechanisms use cross pollination of
> personal data  (i.e. signing up to Airbnb to book room with your Facebook
> account or google account). As far as anonymity is concerned I think we're
> beyond the 'point of no return'.  This if from a North American perspective
> of course, but Europe will soon join us with different levels of
> implementation (the trade off is always Access vs Privacy and that's a
> though sell), and so will the rest of the planet. This sounds a bit
> Orwellian and a bit depressing I agree, and that's why it is SO VERY
> important to get Wikipedia and sister projects to thrive and grow and be a
> strong space, repository of human knowledge, human history, representing *
> all* voices.
>

Mostly this is just laziness. It is entirely possible, and downright easy,
to be anonymous online. A significant portion of my online life is tied to
an anonymous email/identity. Despite genuine and determined efforts by
particularly unpleasant people this hasn't been "cracked".

But this is somewhat distracting; anonymity isn't really an issue. Knowing
someones name and location isn't really useful to anything - except as a
threat for when they "do something wrong". I can't see how that is
beneficial because all it really means is that it gives the hacks and the
idiots someone to aim at.  Knowing real life identities doesn't help stop
harassers. The most direct harassment I have had from Wikipedia is from
someone who's real name and identity is known.

Tom
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Oliver Keyes]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Sylvia Ventura
wrote:

> Hi Theo, thank you for the thorough response. You bring up very valid
> points, specially around privacy standards across countries/continents with
> a very different political and cultural makeup. And not something likely to
> change unless supremacy over wikipedia is given to one specific entity or
> state (nah). And losing our Freedom of Speech is not up for question.
>
> A coupe of thoughts on the comment < anonymity>> that might have been the case in the early days, but as more of
> our 'real lives' activity migrates online and replaces the physical world;
> internet has become the 'repository' of knowledge, but also goods and
> services, it's increasingly the place where 'untangle assets' get traded
> and human interactions take place
> (social/professional/commercial/financial/legal…). As we create our online
> trail, so is our personal profile. It's just a matter of time before we
> access everything about anyone with a simple email address (Google already
> pulls chunks of info from linkedin twitter, quora, etc to feed your G+ ID …
> and so does rapportive on email) It's already possible to spot the fake
> (ID) from the real.
>
> More and more you see these "vetting" mechanisms use cross pollination of
> personal data  (i.e. signing up to Airbnb to book room with your Facebook
> account or google account). As far as anonymity is concerned I think we're
> beyond the 'point of no return'.  This if from a North American perspective
> of course, but Europe will soon join us with different levels of
> implementation (the trade off is always Access vs Privacy and that's a
> though sell), and so will the rest of the planet. This sounds a bit
> Orwellian and a bit depressing I agree, and that's why it is SO VERY
> important to get Wikipedia and sister projects to thrive and grow and be a
> strong space, repository of human knowledge, human history, representing *
> all* voices.
>

Europe is increasingly unlikely to join North America. This is a continent
whose most recent actions in relation to privacy law strengthened it /past/
the data protection standard, not reduced that standard. I'm confused as to
how the solution to a future that is "a bit Orwellian and a bit depressing"
is to embrace it, but make sure that everyone is equally surveiled.

>
> Sylvia
> ---------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 02:23:53 +0530
> From: Theo10011 
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> 
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap
> Message-ID:
> <
> cap9+r94miyuwuuqe_6cfk-ucn6xz73cfuzanqzvzwmtd8zg...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
> Hi Sylvia
>
> It seems the crux of your argument is against the nature of the Internet
> itself, rather than anything specific to Wikipedia. There is nothing unique
> about anonymity on Wikipedia. In fact, it could be argued that internet
> itself promotes anonymity - Internet protocol don't require any real user
> identification for access, beyond giving a rough idea of someone's access
> point, the only information that is there is what a user willingly chooses
> to divulge. As the adage goes - On the internet, nobody knows you're a
> dog.[1] And in this day and age, a dog can indeed have a FB profile, a
> twitter account, gmail, a youtube channel, a tumblr and even a Wikipedia
> account (TOS doesn't have anything against dogsI think). I don't see
> what is unique on Wikipedia that promotes pseudonymous or anonymous users
> anymore than other places - it would always come down to what someone
> chooses to reveal and their own level of personal boundaries.
>
> Then there is the entire idea about the wisdom of the crowd, which implies
> that the individual is irrelevant to a certain extent, nameless at best. It
> is the collective that gives the crowd its identity and strength - to that
> purpose it is easier to join the crowd, as it is easy to leave.
>
> There is something also worth mentioning here about American/European
> elitism, where coming from places in Middle-east, South-America, and parts
> of Asia, associating your political opinion with your real-world identity
> can have very real and dire repercussions. In India, for example, two women
> were arrested for expressing their opinion on FB at the demise of a
> political figure, I believe one of them posted a comment and the other
> "liked" it on Facebook.[2] They were both arrested in the middle of the
> night by police from a completely different area. And th

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Sylvia Ventura]

Hi Theo, thank you for the thorough response. You bring up very valid
points, specially around privacy standards across countries/continents with
a very different political and cultural makeup. And not something likely to
change unless supremacy over wikipedia is given to one specific entity or
state (nah). And losing our Freedom of Speech is not up for question.

A coupe of thoughts on the comment <> that might have been the case in the early days, but as more of
our 'real lives' activity migrates online and replaces the physical world;
internet has become the 'repository' of knowledge, but also goods and
services, it's increasingly the place where 'untangle assets' get traded
and human interactions take place
(social/professional/commercial/financial/legal…). As we create our online
trail, so is our personal profile. It's just a matter of time before we
access everything about anyone with a simple email address (Google already
pulls chunks of info from linkedin twitter, quora, etc to feed your G+ ID …
and so does rapportive on email) It's already possible to spot the fake
(ID) from the real.

More and more you see these "vetting" mechanisms use cross pollination of
personal data  (i.e. signing up to Airbnb to book room with your Facebook
account or google account). As far as anonymity is concerned I think we're
beyond the 'point of no return'.  This if from a North American perspective
of course, but Europe will soon join us with different levels of
implementation (the trade off is always Access vs Privacy and that's a
though sell), and so will the rest of the planet. This sounds a bit
Orwellian and a bit depressing I agree, and that's why it is SO VERY
important to get Wikipedia and sister projects to thrive and grow and be a
strong space, repository of human knowledge, human history, representing *
all* voices.

Sylvia
-

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 02:23:53 +0530
From: Theo10011 
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects

Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Hi Sylvia

It seems the crux of your argument is against the nature of the Internet
itself, rather than anything specific to Wikipedia. There is nothing unique
about anonymity on Wikipedia. In fact, it could be argued that internet
itself promotes anonymity - Internet protocol don't require any real user
identification for access, beyond giving a rough idea of someone's access
point, the only information that is there is what a user willingly chooses
to divulge. As the adage goes - On the internet, nobody knows you're a
dog.[1] And in this day and age, a dog can indeed have a FB profile, a
twitter account, gmail, a youtube channel, a tumblr and even a Wikipedia
account (TOS doesn't have anything against dogsI think). I don't see
what is unique on Wikipedia that promotes pseudonymous or anonymous users
anymore than other places - it would always come down to what someone
chooses to reveal and their own level of personal boundaries.

Then there is the entire idea about the wisdom of the crowd, which implies
that the individual is irrelevant to a certain extent, nameless at best. It
is the collective that gives the crowd its identity and strength - to that
purpose it is easier to join the crowd, as it is easy to leave.

There is something also worth mentioning here about American/European
elitism, where coming from places in Middle-east, South-America, and parts
of Asia, associating your political opinion with your real-world identity
can have very real and dire repercussions. In India, for example, two women
were arrested for expressing their opinion on FB at the demise of a
political figure, I believe one of them posted a comment and the other
"liked" it on Facebook.[2] They were both arrested in the middle of the
night by police from a completely different area. And that is probably one
of the tamest example I could think of, when you consider what the
political situation is in the parts of the middle-east. I'm sure I can pull
up horrifying stories about bloggers in Egypt or Iran or elsewhere, who
don't truly share the luxury of free speech.

Then the second implication, I don't think anonymity alone permits someone
to cross any lines. It would be a facile argument to disprove, that once
anonymity is removed from the equation that you can expect someone to be
more civil. You still don't know anything about the person on the other
end, neither would they about you, besides what you choose to reveal - you
would remain two perfect strangers. Now, implying that associating their
name with that a single comment to you, would be singled out and have
real-world implications, be it work or family - would be another stretch.
All this seems like

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

Andreas wrote:

>At the moment, I believe the only editors required to identify are arbitrators 
>and chapter members.
For the first, no, all functionaries (I had to provide proof of identity when I 
got the oversight bit) as well as arbs have to identify to the Foundation. 
Chapter members ... do you mean chapter board members?
Daniel Case___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Theo10011]

Hi Sylvia

It seems the crux of your argument is against the nature of the Internet
itself, rather than anything specific to Wikipedia. There is nothing unique
about anonymity on Wikipedia. In fact, it could be argued that internet
itself promotes anonymity - Internet protocol don't require any real user
identification for access, beyond giving a rough idea of someone's access
point, the only information that is there is what a user willingly chooses
to divulge. As the adage goes - On the internet, nobody knows you're a
dog.[1] And in this day and age, a dog can indeed have a FB profile, a
twitter account, gmail, a youtube channel, a tumblr and even a Wikipedia
account (TOS doesn't have anything against dogsI think). I don't see
what is unique on Wikipedia that promotes pseudonymous or anonymous users
anymore than other places - it would always come down to what someone
chooses to reveal and their own level of personal boundaries.

Then there is the entire idea about the wisdom of the crowd, which implies
that the individual is irrelevant to a certain extent, nameless at best. It
is the collective that gives the crowd its identity and strength - to that
purpose it is easier to join the crowd, as it is easy to leave.

There is something also worth mentioning here about American/European
elitism, where coming from places in Middle-east, South-America, and parts
of Asia, associating your political opinion with your real-world identity
can have very real and dire repercussions. In India, for example, two women
were arrested for expressing their opinion on FB at the demise of a
political figure, I believe one of them posted a comment and the other
"liked" it on Facebook.[2] They were both arrested in the middle of the
night by police from a completely different area. And that is probably one
of the tamest example I could think of, when you consider what the
political situation is in the parts of the middle-east. I'm sure I can pull
up horrifying stories about bloggers in Egypt or Iran or elsewhere, who
don't truly share the luxury of free speech.

Then the second implication, I don't think anonymity alone permits someone
to cross any lines. It would be a facile argument to disprove, that once
anonymity is removed from the equation that you can expect someone to be
more civil. You still don't know anything about the person on the other
end, neither would they about you, besides what you choose to reveal - you
would remain two perfect strangers. Now, implying that associating their
name with that a single comment to you, would be singled out and have
real-world implications, be it work or family - would be another stretch.
All this seems like a case of "telling on someone" as children, usually
their parents and expecting intervention. Online platforms already have
system that resembles this, whether its an admin, or flagging something or
contacting support. Then, most work-places I have known can't censor
someone's personal or political opinion or what they do or say in their own
personal time, impeaching them would be against their civil rights - even
if it is politically incorrect - it would have to be of their own volition
to change. As Voltaire put it - "I do not agree with what you have to say,
but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." (or perhaps it was
Evelyn Beatrice Hall.)

If such a totalitarian system were ever to be conceived that won't permit
anonymity, I suppose it would get complicated with different nationalities,
especially EU, where handling and sharing someone's personal information
requires far more restrictions, not to mention the oppressive regimes would
have their own "requirements". I suppose someone would have to weigh what
they gain vs what they lose. Sadly, they might lose Freedom of speech and
Privacy, for the chance that someone would be nicer on the internet.


On Fri, May 10, 2013, Sylvia Ventura  wrote:

>
> 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.
>

I don't quite follow that your ID was deleted for vandalism? I would like
to offer my help as an admin. Please let me know your username, and I will
see if it can be rectified.


>
>
> 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 
> har

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Oliver Keyes]

It would also be a massive resourcing challenge, particularly to get
identification working across all projects. What is ideal is not always
what is feasible.


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe  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...?
>>
>
>
> The difference might be for example that editing biographies of living
> persons would be a right reserved to editors who have identified to the
> Foundation. I am pretty certain that this would have prevented cases like
> Johann Hari's, for example.
>
>
> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted
>
> It would also prevent people from returning with sock after sock to add
> negative material to the biographies of people they don't like, or indeed
> fluff up their own.
>
> Let's not forget that a significant number of editors and administrators
> have for years edited under their real names, or have their identities
> known. At the moment, I believe the only editors required to identify are
> arbitrators and chapter members. It would be conceivable to expand that
> requirement to various other user rights.
>
> Andreas
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe  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...?
>


The difference might be for example that editing biographies of living
persons would be a right reserved to editors who have identified to the
Foundation. I am pretty certain that this would have prevented cases like
Johann Hari's, for example.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted

It would also prevent people from returning with sock after sock to add
negative material to the biographies of people they don't like, or indeed
fluff up their own.

Let's not forget that a significant number of editors and administrators
have for years edited under their real names, or have their identities
known. At the moment, I believe the only editors required to identify are
arbitrators and chapter members. It would be conceivable to expand that
requirement to various other user rights.

Andreas
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Nepenthe]

Presumably Sarah means Cindamuse
.




On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>   >I know women (Cristamuse, Slim Virgin, just to name two) who deal with
> plenty of crap and *ARE NOT* admins.
>
> Actually, Sara, Slim Virgin *is* an admin:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/SlimVirgin
>
> And are you sure you’ve got the other username right?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cristamuse
>
> Daniel Case
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

>I know women (Cristamuse, Slim Virgin, just to name two) who deal with plenty 
>of crap and *ARE NOT* admins.  

Actually, Sara, Slim Virgin is an admin: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/SlimVirgin

And are you sure you’ve got the other username right? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cristamuse

Daniel Case___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Sarah Stierch]

I'm glad to hear that Gayle.

But please remember - female admins get it bad, but, the "attention" I got,
wasn't "upped" when I became an admin. Yes, i'm a bit more of a "known"
person than perhaps other women in the community (right now) but...I know
women (Cristamuse, Slim Virgin, just to name two) who deal with plenty of
crap and *ARE NOT* admins.

Please remember..it's not just admins. The moment you become a highly
active publicly identified female on Wikipedia, you are automatically prone
to sexualized comments (friendly or not..."sweetie, lassie, etc." or
"you're so pretty"))), harassment, and so forth.

Admins get it pretty damn bad, but non-admins get it bad too. And I don't
want us to forget that, and that's why I think it's so important that women
get support - any editor on that matter.

The moment you make edits to articles like "feminism" "mens rights"
"pro-choice" "pro-life" "pregnancy" etc, you are in the minefield.

-Sarah


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Gayle Karen Young wrote:

> One of the things I talked to one of the female admins about is figuring
> out how to better support them in the stuff they have to deal with, and
> it's on my radar. That's just an FYI.
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:57 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
>> (changing the topic back)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Sylvia Ventura wrote:
>>
>>> Anne, you're absolutely right on the 'high profile'. The broader the
>>> reach, impact, exposure, the more likely you are to become the target of
>>> good and bad 'attention'. The question is, much like in real-life, the
>>> higher up you are in an organization the more 'support' and/or protection
>>> you will likely need/get, as a community  should we be able to insure a
>>> similar mechanism. This community resilience won't be built on a MadMax
>>> fighting-your-way-through model (I know it's rather dramatic :)
>>>
>>>
>> From all the stories I've heard over the years, admins and arbitrators
>> get the worst of it -- being in a position where you delete articles or
>> mediate disputes on the project (and let's face it, the folks who get into
>> arbitration-type situations on wikipedia are often not the most stable or
>> reasonable people on earth) seems to be the most direct way to potentially
>> exposing yourself to lots of harassment. And if you're identified as
>> female, it's way worse.
>>
>> Conversely from my experiences being pretty visible on the
>> *organizational* side of things (and talking to colleagues), there is a low
>> level of harassment that comes with that gig, but *nothing* like the horror
>> stories I've heard from some admins.
>>
>> This is clearly untenable; the projects need to grow experienced
>> contributors who can serve in positions of leadership and as mentors on the
>> projects, and we can't expect everyone to just suck it up ("so sorry, you
>> will have to work with crazy people"). I worry that folks often just find
>> themselves unsupported. I don't know what the answer is.
>>
>> -- phoebe
>>
>> --
>> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
>>  gmail.com *
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Gayle Karen K. Young
> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.310.8416
> www.wikimediafoundation.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 
-- 
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Gayle Karen Young]

One of the things I talked to one of the female admins about is figuring
out how to better support them in the stuff they have to deal with, and
it's on my radar. That's just an FYI.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:57 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> (changing the topic back)
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Sylvia Ventura wrote:
>
>> Anne, you're absolutely right on the 'high profile'. The broader the
>> reach, impact, exposure, the more likely you are to become the target of
>> good and bad 'attention'. The question is, much like in real-life, the
>> higher up you are in an organization the more 'support' and/or protection
>> you will likely need/get, as a community  should we be able to insure a
>> similar mechanism. This community resilience won't be built on a MadMax
>> fighting-your-way-through model (I know it's rather dramatic :)
>>
>>
> From all the stories I've heard over the years, admins and arbitrators get
> the worst of it -- being in a position where you delete articles or mediate
> disputes on the project (and let's face it, the folks who get into
> arbitration-type situations on wikipedia are often not the most stable or
> reasonable people on earth) seems to be the most direct way to potentially
> exposing yourself to lots of harassment. And if you're identified as
> female, it's way worse.
>
> Conversely from my experiences being pretty visible on the
> *organizational* side of things (and talking to colleagues), there is a low
> level of harassment that comes with that gig, but *nothing* like the horror
> stories I've heard from some admins.
>
> This is clearly untenable; the projects need to grow experienced
> contributors who can serve in positions of leadership and as mentors on the
> projects, and we can't expect everyone to just suck it up ("so sorry, you
> will have to work with crazy people"). I worry that folks often just find
> themselves unsupported. I don't know what the answer is.
>
> -- phoebe
>
> --
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
>  gmail.com *
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 
Gayle Karen K. Young
Chief Talent and Culture Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.310.8416
www.wikimediafoundation.org
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[phoebe ayers]

(changing the topic back)


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Sylvia Ventura  wrote:

> Anne, you're absolutely right on the 'high profile'. The broader the
> reach, impact, exposure, the more likely you are to become the target of
> good and bad 'attention'. The question is, much like in real-life, the
> higher up you are in an organization the more 'support' and/or protection
> you will likely need/get, as a community  should we be able to insure a
> similar mechanism. This community resilience won't be built on a MadMax
> fighting-your-way-through model (I know it's rather dramatic :)
>
>
>From all the stories I've heard over the years, admins and arbitrators get
the worst of it -- being in a position where you delete articles or mediate
disputes on the project (and let's face it, the folks who get into
arbitration-type situations on wikipedia are often not the most stable or
reasonable people on earth) seems to be the most direct way to potentially
exposing yourself to lots of harassment. And if you're identified as
female, it's way worse.

Conversely from my experiences being pretty visible on the *organizational*
side of things (and talking to colleagues), there is a low level of
harassment that comes with that gig, but *nothing* like the horror stories
I've heard from some admins.

This is clearly untenable; the projects need to grow experienced
contributors who can serve in positions of leadership and as mentors on the
projects, and we can't expect everyone to just suck it up ("so sorry, you
will have to work with crazy people"). I worry that folks often just find
themselves unsupported. I don't know what the answer is.

-- phoebe

-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers 
gmail.com *
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Oliver Keyes]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe  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 
>> 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_ga

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Andreas Kolbe]

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 
> 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 t

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Risker]

What a lovely and thoughtful essay, Sylvia.

For my part, I see a significant difference between sharing information
with people I choose to share information with, and posting my personal
details on a publicly accessible, top-10 website, where the people most
likely to abuse that information don't even need to log in to see it, and
where there are no privacy control options.

I have always gone to significant trouble to keep my personal information
to myself. I don't "do"  facebook, or twitter, or google+.  Several of my
family members (who share my rather obscure surname) have been subjected to
telephone calls, facebook and twitter messages intended to harass *me*.  I
do not participate in media interviews or any surveys where my personal
information would be included. I don't participate on websites where I know
personal information of wikipedians is exchanged, and in fact rarely access
them and then only with an anonymizing proxy.  For all intents and
purposes, I only participate regularly on one non-WMF website/forumand
sure enough, at one point someone tracked down my account there and
manipulated other forum members to provide information about me, which was
later used to try to blackmail me in my role as an English Wikipedia
arbitrator.

Those worries are real, and these events do happen; however, much of it
relates to how "high profile" someone is.  One of the biggest downsides in
being amongst the small number of self-identifying women on WMF sites is
the fact that we become higher profile simply because of our rarity.  The
overwhelming majority of Wikimedians are never bothered in these ways; I'd
suggest that it's probably less than 1% of us who have been so aggressively
dealt with.  But when it happens, and especially if it's out of the blue,
it is an horrendous experience.

Risker/Anne






On 9 May 2013 14:58, Sylvia Ventura  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,
> both on and off Wikipedia]]
>
>
>
> After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator 
> Hersfoldin yesterday’s Signpost 
> I can’

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Katherine Casey]

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 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,
> both on and off Wikipedia]]
>
>
>
> After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator 
> Hersfold

[Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Sylvia Ventura]

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,
both on and off Wikipedia]]



After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator
Hersfoldin 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  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
Hersfoldresignation
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