Re: [Gendergap] Bring back Wikiquette assistance?? Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Carol Moore DC]

On 5/9/2013 8:57 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
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.

1. A friendlier place to complain than WP:ANI
(which Wikiquette assistance was til they got rid of it)

2. and MORE BLOCKS against jerks from there.  I didn't
get much help but was less afraid to complain there
which at least makes some perps a little nervous.

It took me about 4 years before I had courage to go to ANI
and I'm pretty assertive.

Even now I usually only go for pretty clear cases of abusive
Sockpuppets - despite sometimes taking immense
sh*t, snide comments and false accusations, blaring
and bugling my occassional misstep/loss of temper.
It's always nice when other editors
stick up for you and tell the offenders to cut it out.)

If I had a male handle I'm sure I'd be treated better,
and any ANIs about less obvious insults/harassment/
BLP violation/etc. problems would be taken more seriously.
(I can't remember details but it seems my first few
were not and I gave up. Of course I've been brought
there 5-6 times for nonsense which was dismissed.)

On the other hand I like the more obnoxious and/or
patriarchal male editors having to DEAL with the
idea it's a FEMALE who often outsmarts them on
more contentious pages and gets more support
from other editors who may be assumed to be
male.

Sometimes I wish I'd find a more lucrative addiction;
like being addicted to making money :-)

CM

PS: I've said variations on the above 2 or 3
times before on this list, but what the heck...


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

Re: [Gendergap] Long term abuse pages help where relevant...Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Carol Moore DC]

OK, points taken below from Oliver Keyes about talking to trolls.

But here's what (knock wood) got my well known long term abuse harasser 
(1000+ nasty and/or threatening emails, hundreds of reverts of edits to 
me during last 6 months) off my back without going to the cops --which I 
easily could have done, and still would do if I felt they were coming to 
my side of the continent with ill intent:


*Got roll back which helped with all the danged reverts.
*Updated and cleaned up his Long-term abuser page and made sure it was 
real clear what the various modus operandi were and how to deal with 
them since I'm not the only one he goes off on, just one of the worst 
recently
*Put Wikimedia foundation email in a box at the top of project page so 
editors with similar problems knew one place to go right away
*Added a bunch of info on the laws on cyber-harassment in HIS state and 
linked to the larger article from the abuse page
*Every time he'd have a new spate of insulting me I'd go to some article 
relevant to arrest/prosecution/imprisonment/psychiatric evaluation for 
his various crimes and do some minor clean up, just so he'd get the message


since then just got a few non-threatening nasty emails and a couple 
reverts; knock wood again that it keeps on working!!


So starting long-term abuse pages for harassers and using them is a 
really good idea.


CM

On 5/9/2013 4:42 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:



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.



___
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 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 line

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 a case of "telling on someone" as children, usually
their parents and expecting intervention. Online platforms already have
system that resembles this, 

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] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Tom Morris  wrote:

>
> It'd be nice if we had OTRS agents more active in Commons who could
> proactively deal with these kinds of things.
>
> (They might be made to feel as welcome as Christians in lion enclosures,
> but that's another matter...)


I really don't think so Tom. I'm fairly active in these discussions, and
feel my views are generally given appropriate weight. (I've done very
little on OTRS for some time, but so I might not exactly fit the
description, but I consider our OTRS team kindred spirits!)

Sometimes a case is closed counter to my vote; in some of those cases, I
learn something I didn't know. The Stollzow case is a very rare exception
where I feel the wrong decision was made; I don't think it's fair to
generalize from fringe cases like this. It can be a pretty congenial place
to work, and dissenting views are in my experience given fair
consideration. (Care and clarity in expressing one's views is always a
consideration, because of the huge linguistic and philosophical diversity
among Commons contributors.)

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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Tom Morris]

On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:48, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> Well said, Fluff. I actually don't think the verification is necessary in a 
> case like this; there's no compelling reason to suspect the person is lying 
> about her identity. And given the scale of how many files are proposed for 
> deletion in a day, I don't think we can afford to set the bar so high that it 
> requires OTRS in a straightforward case like this.


In the case of the Stollzow case, I'd exercise a little caution only because 
she's from the skeptic community and there's been a lot of back-and-forth about 
feminism and gender equality in that community. It wouldn't put it past people 
to sock to nominate women skeptics for deletion. 

It'd be nice if we had OTRS agents more active in Commons who could proactively 
deal with these kinds of things.

(They might be made to feel as welcome as Christians in lion enclosures, but 
that's another matter...) 

-- 
Tom Morris




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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

Tom, I agree with your concern. But if the principle is that we should
enforce the board resolution anywhere it applies, we should simply delete
this photo without needing OTRS, right? It's an issue of who's obligated to
do what. The board resolution clearly states that if there is no
demonstration of consent, the file must be deleted. So the subject
shouldn't even need to assert her dissent for the deletion to go through,
if we're to be true to the resolution.

This gets problematic pretty quickly, though, when you think about the huge
number of innocuous and useful images of people in private places on
Wikipedia and other projects. For instance, when the Wikimedia Foundation
published a photo of me on its site, of course they consulted me before
publishing it, and I gave my consent; but that is not reflected in the
Commons file, there's no way for the viewer to know whether I consented or
not. So going by the letter of the resolution, this (and most other
Wikimedia Foundation staff photos) would have to be deleted:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Pete_Forsyth.jpg

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

p.s. I just noticed there is more of a history to the Karen Stollznow file
than I remembered. Looks like it was uploaded more than once:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_1.jpg


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Tom Morris  wrote:

> On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:23, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> > I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
> resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
> moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
> (presumably) private setting in a library:
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg
> >
> > The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did
> *not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that
> compelling enough.
> >
> > What would be a good outcome in this case?
>
> The only problem I have in this situation is that anyone could come on,
> register a username on Commons and say "Hi, I'm XYZ, I didn't consent to my
> image being taken and used on Wikipedia, please delete."
>
> Ideally, we'd do this through OTRS rather than on-wiki so we can confirm
> that the people requesting deletion are who they say they are.
>
> Until we have enough people to handle these issues, we should err on the
> side of caution - in this case, probably deleting.
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> 
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Some nice news

[Pete Forsyth]

Thanks for the updates Sumana, and I agree with Siko -- item #3 is
especially awesome!
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Siko Bouterse wrote:

> Yay :-)  And congratulations to you and your team, Sumana, on the OPW>GSoC
> boost - it is really exciting to see the work pay off!
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Sumana Harihareswara <
> suma...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions_sorted_by_number_of_interested_attendees
>> - some of the most-wanted talks are "Towards bridging the gender gap in
>> Indian Wikimedia community" and "Recruiting Librarians and Archivists to
>> Help Close the Wikipedia Gender Gap" with "Bridging the Gender Gap with
>> Women Scientists" a little further behind.
>>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ombudsman_commission#Gender_neutrality
>> has several people speaking up in favor of a more gender-neutral name.
>> (Feel free to pipe up there.)
>>
>> The Wikimedia engineering department's participation in Outreach Program
>> for Women internships
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_Program_for_Women#Round_6 led to
>> far more women and genderfluid people applying for the Google Summer of
>> Code internships than we'd ever recruited before.  Previous years: 0-2
>> non-spammy applications.  This year: ~10.  Practicing affirmative
>> outreach and explicitly welcoming women really works.  One applicant
>> told me that #mediawiki is one of the few open source-related IRC
>> channels she's felt comfortable and welcomed in.
>>
>> Various Wikimedian women are going to be speaking at Open Source Bridge
>> next month
>> http://opensourcebridge.org/blog/2013/05/2013-speakers-list-is-here/ ,
>> including Sucheta Ghoshal, me, Alolita Sharma, and Valerie Aurora.
>>
>> So, we have a lot to do, but I just wanted to take a moment to say yay.
>>
>> --
>> Sumana Harihareswara
>> Engineering Community Manager
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Siko Bouterse
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> sboute...@wikimedia.org
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge. *
> *Donate  or click the "edit" button today,
> and help us make it a reality!*
>
> ___
> 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] Some nice news

[Siko Bouterse]

Yay :-)  And congratulations to you and your team, Sumana, on the OPW>GSoC
boost - it is really exciting to see the work pay off!


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Sumana Harihareswara  wrote:

>
> https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions_sorted_by_number_of_interested_attendees
> - some of the most-wanted talks are "Towards bridging the gender gap in
> Indian Wikimedia community" and "Recruiting Librarians and Archivists to
> Help Close the Wikipedia Gender Gap" with "Bridging the Gender Gap with
> Women Scientists" a little further behind.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ombudsman_commission#Gender_neutrality
> has several people speaking up in favor of a more gender-neutral name.
> (Feel free to pipe up there.)
>
> The Wikimedia engineering department's participation in Outreach Program
> for Women internships
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_Program_for_Women#Round_6 led to
> far more women and genderfluid people applying for the Google Summer of
> Code internships than we'd ever recruited before.  Previous years: 0-2
> non-spammy applications.  This year: ~10.  Practicing affirmative
> outreach and explicitly welcoming women really works.  One applicant
> told me that #mediawiki is one of the few open source-related IRC
> channels she's felt comfortable and welcomed in.
>
> Various Wikimedian women are going to be speaking at Open Source Bridge
> next month
> http://opensourcebridge.org/blog/2013/05/2013-speakers-list-is-here/ ,
> including Sucheta Ghoshal, me, Alolita Sharma, and Valerie Aurora.
>
> So, we have a lot to do, but I just wanted to take a moment to say yay.
>
> --
> Sumana Harihareswara
> Engineering Community Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>



-- 
Siko Bouterse
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

sboute...@wikimedia.org

*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. *
*Donate  or click the "edit" button today,
and help us make it a reality!*
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

Well said, Fluff. I actually don't think the verification is necessary in a
case like this; there's no compelling reason to suspect the person is lying
about her identity. And given the scale of how many files are proposed for
deletion in a day, I don't think we can afford to set the bar so high that
it requires OTRS in a straightforward case like this.

It seems to me the board resolution covers this case, but was disregarded.
I'm curious to hear other perspectives.

-Pete


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Katherine Casey <
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From a common-sense perspective, Pete, I'd say that if the image was taken
> in a private place, shows an identifiable person, and that person does not
> give permission for us to be using their likeness, it should be a
> no-brainer that we don't have the right (ethically, at least, in light of
> the board resolution) to continue using their photo in defiance of that. So
> a "good outcome" to my mind would have been asking the person to verify
> that they are who they say they are, and if that checks out, deleting the
> image. "In scope", which is the content of the actual close there, is
> pretty much a non-sequitur (and is yet another example of why Commons
> adminning is sometimes viewed as completely...shall we say tone deaf?...to
> actual concerns about images), as it fails to address that issue.
>
> Or, to tl;dr it: As far as I'm concerned, if the person had an expectation
> of privacy and didn't consent to public distribution of their image, it
> doesn't matter whether it's their breasts or just their face that's
> featured - we should not be hosting it.
>
> -Fluff
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
>> I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
>> resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
>> moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
>> (presumably) private setting in a library:
>>
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg
>>
>> The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did
>> *not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that
>> compelling enough.
>>
>> What would be a good outcome in this case?
>>
>> And, more generally, how can resolution language be structured in a way
>> that best achieves desirable outcomes, and doesn't have undesirable ones?
>> That's the core question here, and the way this discussion is heading isn't
>> getting us closer to an answer.
>>
>> Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Tom Morris]

On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:23, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board 
> resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a 
> moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a 
> (presumably) private setting in a library:
> 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg
> 
> The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did *not* 
> give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that compelling 
> enough.
> 
> What would be a good outcome in this case?

The only problem I have in this situation is that anyone could come on, 
register a username on Commons and say "Hi, I'm XYZ, I didn't consent to my 
image being taken and used on Wikipedia, please delete."

Ideally, we'd do this through OTRS rather than on-wiki so we can confirm that 
the people requesting deletion are who they say they are.

Until we have enough people to handle these issues, we should err on the side 
of caution - in this case, probably deleting. 

-- 
Tom Morris




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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Katherine Casey]

>From a common-sense perspective, Pete, I'd say that if the image was taken
in a private place, shows an identifiable person, and that person does not
give permission for us to be using their likeness, it should be a
no-brainer that we don't have the right (ethically, at least, in light of
the board resolution) to continue using their photo in defiance of that. So
a "good outcome" to my mind would have been asking the person to verify
that they are who they say they are, and if that checks out, deleting the
image. "In scope", which is the content of the actual close there, is
pretty much a non-sequitur (and is yet another example of why Commons
adminning is sometimes viewed as completely...shall we say tone deaf?...to
actual concerns about images), as it fails to address that issue.

Or, to tl;dr it: As far as I'm concerned, if the person had an expectation
of privacy and didn't consent to public distribution of their image, it
doesn't matter whether it's their breasts or just their face that's
featured - we should not be hosting it.

-Fluff


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

> I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
> resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
> moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
> (presumably) private setting in a library:
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg
>
> The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did
> *not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that
> compelling enough.
>
> What would be a good outcome in this case?
>
> And, more generally, how can resolution language be structured in a way
> that best achieves desirable outcomes, and doesn't have undesirable ones?
> That's the core question here, and the way this discussion is heading isn't
> getting us closer to an answer.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> ___
> 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] Some nice news

[Sumana Harihareswara]

https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions_sorted_by_number_of_interested_attendees
- some of the most-wanted talks are "Towards bridging the gender gap in
Indian Wikimedia community" and "Recruiting Librarians and Archivists to
Help Close the Wikipedia Gender Gap" with "Bridging the Gender Gap with
Women Scientists" a little further behind.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ombudsman_commission#Gender_neutrality
has several people speaking up in favor of a more gender-neutral name.
(Feel free to pipe up there.)

The Wikimedia engineering department's participation in Outreach Program
for Women internships
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_Program_for_Women#Round_6 led to
far more women and genderfluid people applying for the Google Summer of
Code internships than we'd ever recruited before.  Previous years: 0-2
non-spammy applications.  This year: ~10.  Practicing affirmative
outreach and explicitly welcoming women really works.  One applicant
told me that #mediawiki is one of the few open source-related IRC
channels she's felt comfortable and welcomed in.

Various Wikimedian women are going to be speaking at Open Source Bridge
next month
http://opensourcebridge.org/blog/2013/05/2013-speakers-list-is-here/ ,
including Sucheta Ghoshal, me, Alolita Sharma, and Valerie Aurora.

So, we have a lot to do, but I just wanted to take a moment to say yay.

-- 
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation

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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
(presumably) private setting in a library:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg

The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did
*not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that
compelling enough.

What would be a good outcome in this case?

And, more generally, how can resolution language be structured in a way
that best achieves desirable outcomes, and doesn't have undesirable ones?
That's the core question here, and the way this discussion is heading isn't
getting us closer to an answer.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Jane Darnell]

For what it's worth, I added my comments to your page on Meta

2013/5/9, Sarah Stierch :
> Yay! Erik replied. Seriously, I was beginning to think no one from the
> Foundation read this mailing list anymore aside from me and Kaldari (and we
> read it as volunteers!). See comments below.

>> Is there a page on Meta already where we're coordinating overall
>> policy reform issues relating to the gender gap (whether WMF or
>> community policies) that should be considered?
>>
>> Erik
>>
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/Policy_revolution
>
> There is now. Folks need to remember - Wikipedia is where Wikipedia policy
> is developed, meta is where larger scale policy is developed. So it's the
> best place to be for this type of work right now.
>
> Sarah
>
> --
> --
> *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