[Wikimedia-l] Final round of voting open in the seventeenth annual Picture of the Year contest

[Kunal Mehta]

Hi all,

The final round of voting to determine the seventeenth annual Picture of 
the Year is now open! Please cast your vote at  and 
then share with your communities. This round of voting will be open for 
2 weeks.


Thank you to the 2,407 voters who cast more than 118,000 votes in the 
first round to narrow it down to 56 finalists we all are now choosing 
between.


Any user with more than 75 edits before Jan. 1, 2023 is eligible to 
vote; if you're not sure the voting tool will automatically check for you.


If you have any questions, please see the help page: .

Thanks,
-- POTY Committee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/LJ442SNZ2REMHCT3EYPUINRJP2WVME36/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Local enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct

[Mike Peel]

Hello Andreas,

A key part of the Enforcement Guidelines is the formation of a global 
committee called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee 
(U4C). The process of building the U4C is just starting with the 
formation of the U4C Building Committee. More information about this is 
on meta. The U4C will work with other decision making bodies, like the 
English Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, when faced with global 
challenges such as these. It should also provide value 
thought-partnership in helping to evaluate global standards and local 
policies against the UCoC for compliance.


In the meantime, we encourage individuals to work with their local 
bodies or with the Foundation’s Trust & Safety team at c...@wikimedia.org 
in cases where they believe that significant UCoC violations may have 
occurred and may be unaddressed. We have faith that the English 
Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee can evaluate the case before them and 
know they have a productive relationship with Foundation staff and 
attorneys if they feel they need support.


Best,
Mike Peel
For the Community Affairs Committee,
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees


On 24/04/2023 14:00, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

Dear Wikimedia Foundation Trustees and all,

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) has been in force for some time. 
The Enforcement Guidelines have now been endorsed by the community. But 
as with any new document, shared understandings and clarifications must 
develop over time. Until then, practical enforcement is anything but 
routine. Here is an example.


Section 3.1 of the UCoC states that the following is harassment:

/*Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors' 
private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or 
email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia 
projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia 
activity outside the projects./


As you are no doubt aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author 
recently published an academic essay criticising aspects of the English 
Wikipedia's Holocaust coverage. In their essay, the authors mention the 
legal names and the places of employment of two longstanding Wikipedia 
contributors who, as WMF Trust & Safety will confirm, have suffered 
years of egregious harassment because of their Wikimedia participation. 
I understand this has included threats to their children, calls to their 
workplace asking for them to be fired, etc.


Given this history, the authors' decision to share precise information 
about these contributors' workplaces in their academic essay struck me 
as ill advised. It is hard to justify on scholarly grounds – the 
Holocaust topic area is unrelated to the academic positions held by 
these two Wikipedians. And surely it must have occurred to the authors 
that providing information on their workplaces might exacerbate the 
harassment they are already experiencing, of which the authors were well 
aware.


Needless to say, neither of the two contributors gave their consent to 
having their names and workplaces shared in the essay, which criticises 
them severely – and in at least some cases very unfairly.


Given that explicit consent is what the UCoC requires for sharing of 
personal information, sharing details of these Wikimedians' workplaces – 
especially in the context of harsh and inflammatory criticism of their 
editing, and a long history of prior harassment suffered by these 
contributors – struck me as a bright-line violation of UCoC Section 3.1, 
specifically:


/*Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors' 
private information, such as *name, place of employment*, physical or 
email address *without their explicit consent* either on the Wikimedia 
projects or *elsewhere*, or *sharing information concerning their 
Wikimedia activity outside the projects*./


The reason I am mentioning this here is that the English Arbitration 
Committee, which opened an arbitration case soon after publication of 
the essay, appears largely to have taken a different view to date, 
preferring to apply the most charitable interpretation of a local 
English Wikipedia policy instead of the UCoC definition.[1]


Local policy on English Wikipedia says that sharing a contributor's 
personal information (on Wikipedia) is not harassment if said 
contributor has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to 
such information, on Wikipedia at some time in the past.[2] In this 
specific case, one of the two contributors once, over a decade ago, 
posted a link to a Dramatica page containing their name and a previous 
place of employment (different from their current place of employment as 
shared in the essay). I understand they tried later on to have that edit 
oversighed but were refused. The other contributor is open about their 
legal name and workplace on Wikipedia.


As we can see, the English Wikipedia's local policy is not aligned with 

[Wikimedia-l] Update to Wikimania 2023 scholarship applicants

[Wikimania]

Hi everyone,

In response to the volume of questions we have been receiving, we wanted to 
clarify that scholarship decisions are being communicated on a rolling 
basis to successful applicants from now until mid May. By the end of May, 
all applicants will receive a communication about the status of their 
scholarship. We have clarified this on the Scholarship page on Wikimania 
Wiki: 
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2023:Scholarships#Important_dates.

Thank you for your patience while we continue the review!


Kind regards,
*Butch Bustria *
On behalf of the ESEAR Wikimania 2023 Core Organizing Team

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7UOWQSYXAJ2FFJRAP43AK2AFMX7BOPHU/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Local enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct

[Gnangarra]

>
> *unless you have a very good reason to do so, and their real-life identity
> is of direct relevance to the issue you are reporting on*


This such a vague statement, every time someone is named it can be said to
be relevant, identifying a person enhances their comment or
diminishes their comment depending on what the author is trying to
achieve.  Placing emphasis on a person, their location, age, occupation is
always arguable as putting them in the "right context" where the "right
context" supports your outcome and POV.

The UCoC enforcement will always be a weapon and have imbalances in an
individual's ability to respond to accusation.

On Wed, 3 May 2023 at 14:47, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Lodewijk,
>
> Thanks. You hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph where you say,
>
> "I'm however not particularly surprised that this issue eventually arises,
> as this was bound to happen. I am also curious for what the intended policy
> implications would be (based on the current UCoC) and maybe then there
> could a conversation be had if that is indeed what we wanted to achieve."
>
> That is exactly what I was hoping us to have a conversation about. (My
> first mail in this thread was addressed to the Board members, who I am sure
> are indeed well aware of the essay. You can find press coverage of it here
> 
> .)
>
> As far as the arbitration case is concerned, ArbCom took the very rare
> step of self-initiating this case in response to the essay. I didn't start
> the case, nor am I a party to it.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:03 PM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> interesting questions. I don't think your assumption "As you are no doubt
>> aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author recently published..."
>> is true. I was definitely not aware of it, and I doubt many others are
>> either. I was able to piece together some of your claims, but not all
>> (simply due to lack of time, I'm sure). Just offering this information so
>> that you can provide the necessary context as needed. I was unable to dive
>> deep enough to give this proper attention. One thing I did note was that
>> you were the person who started the arbitration case. It might be
>> beneficial for this discussion if someone else familiar with the matter,
>> could summarize it. If only for the simple fact that they may have more
>> appreciation of what is and isn't known by the wider community. (For
>> example, I was unable to verify myself that the workplace and real name
>> were indeed shared, and that this information could not be assumed to be
>> public knowledge)
>>
>> Assuming all your stated facts to be correct, I would actually not be
>> certain what the right approach would be either. Surely, it can not be the
>> intent to encourage doxxing off-platform, but we can't attempt to block
>> academic discussion on complex matters either. Wikipedia does not live in a
>> vacuum. I would rephrase your question "are [Wikimedians] permitted to
>> share contributors' private information such as their workplace address in
>> these various venues, without obtaining explicit consent to do so? " to
>> something like: "Should Wikimedians be sanctioned when they disclose
>> private information without explicit consent in the source of academic (or
>> political, societal) discourse outside of Wikimedia".
>>
>> I'm however not particularly surprised that this issue eventually arises,
>> as this was bound to happen. I am also curious for what the intended policy
>> implications would be (based on the current UCoC) and maybe then there
>> could a conversation be had if that is indeed what we wanted to achieve.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:01 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Wikimedia Foundation Trustees and all,
>>>
>>> The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) has been in force for some time.
>>> The Enforcement Guidelines have now been endorsed by the community. But as
>>> with any new document, shared understandings and clarifications must
>>> develop over time. Until then, practical enforcement is anything but
>>> routine. Here is an example.
>>>
>>> Section 3.1 of the UCoC states that the following is harassment:
>>>
>>> *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors'
>>> private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
>>> address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
>>> elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
>>> outside the projects.*
>>>
>>> As you are no doubt aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author
>>> recently published an academic essay criticising aspects of the English
>>> Wikipedia's Holocaust coverage. In their essay, the authors mention the
>>> legal names and the places of employment of two longstanding Wikipedia
>>> contributors who, as WMF Trust 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Local enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Lodewijk,

Thanks. You hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph where you say,

"I'm however not particularly surprised that this issue eventually arises,
as this was bound to happen. I am also curious for what the intended policy
implications would be (based on the current UCoC) and maybe then there
could a conversation be had if that is indeed what we wanted to achieve."

That is exactly what I was hoping us to have a conversation about. (My
first mail in this thread was addressed to the Board members, who I am sure
are indeed well aware of the essay. You can find press coverage of it here

.)

As far as the arbitration case is concerned, ArbCom took the very rare step
of self-initiating this case in response to the essay. I didn't start the
case, nor am I a party to it.

Best,
Andreas

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:03 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> interesting questions. I don't think your assumption "As you are no doubt
> aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author recently published..."
> is true. I was definitely not aware of it, and I doubt many others are
> either. I was able to piece together some of your claims, but not all
> (simply due to lack of time, I'm sure). Just offering this information so
> that you can provide the necessary context as needed. I was unable to dive
> deep enough to give this proper attention. One thing I did note was that
> you were the person who started the arbitration case. It might be
> beneficial for this discussion if someone else familiar with the matter,
> could summarize it. If only for the simple fact that they may have more
> appreciation of what is and isn't known by the wider community. (For
> example, I was unable to verify myself that the workplace and real name
> were indeed shared, and that this information could not be assumed to be
> public knowledge)
>
> Assuming all your stated facts to be correct, I would actually not be
> certain what the right approach would be either. Surely, it can not be the
> intent to encourage doxxing off-platform, but we can't attempt to block
> academic discussion on complex matters either. Wikipedia does not live in a
> vacuum. I would rephrase your question "are [Wikimedians] permitted to
> share contributors' private information such as their workplace address in
> these various venues, without obtaining explicit consent to do so? " to
> something like: "Should Wikimedians be sanctioned when they disclose
> private information without explicit consent in the source of academic (or
> political, societal) discourse outside of Wikimedia".
>
> I'm however not particularly surprised that this issue eventually arises,
> as this was bound to happen. I am also curious for what the intended policy
> implications would be (based on the current UCoC) and maybe then there
> could a conversation be had if that is indeed what we wanted to achieve.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:01 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear Wikimedia Foundation Trustees and all,
>>
>> The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) has been in force for some time. The
>> Enforcement Guidelines have now been endorsed by the community. But as with
>> any new document, shared understandings and clarifications must develop
>> over time. Until then, practical enforcement is anything but routine. Here
>> is an example.
>>
>> Section 3.1 of the UCoC states that the following is harassment:
>>
>> *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors'
>> private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
>> address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
>> elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
>> outside the projects.*
>>
>> As you are no doubt aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author
>> recently published an academic essay criticising aspects of the English
>> Wikipedia's Holocaust coverage. In their essay, the authors mention the
>> legal names and the places of employment of two longstanding Wikipedia
>> contributors who, as WMF Trust & Safety will confirm, have suffered years
>> of egregious harassment because of their Wikimedia participation. I
>> understand this has included threats to their children, calls to their
>> workplace asking for them to be fired, etc.
>>
>> Given this history, the authors' decision to share precise information
>> about these contributors' workplaces in their academic essay struck me as
>> ill advised. It is hard to justify on scholarly grounds – the Holocaust
>> topic area is unrelated to the academic positions held by these two
>> Wikipedians. And surely it must have occurred to the authors that providing
>> information on their workplaces might exacerbate the harassment they are
>> already experiencing, of which the authors were well aware.
>>
>> Needless to say, neither of the two