Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

[Aron Demian]

On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 05:50, Newyorkbrad  wrote:

> Every time I see the title of this thread, I momentarily wonder why this
> event is being held 220 years ago.
>

Military time :-)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects

[Aron Demian]

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 04:25, AntiCompositeNumber <
anticompositenum...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would it be fair to say that:
>  - Enforcement of a universal code of conduct would happen though a
> fair, clearly-defined process without significant bias and with
> significant community oversight and input
> - Universal code of conduct enforcement actions would be appealable
> through a fair, clearly-defined process with significant community
> oversight that allowed statements from involved parties and uninvolved
> community members
> - To ensure proper community oversight, code of conduct enforcement
> actions and appeals would be made as public as possible as often as
> possible (excepting issues where public disclosure would harm privacy
> or safety)
>
> AntiComposite
>

Yes! These are fundamental requirements that need to be met by the process
that will be implemented in the second phase (Aug - end of 2020).
It seems there will be an opportunity to incorporate these requirements:

The second phase, outlining clear enforcement pathways, and
> *refined with** broad input from the Wikimedia communities*, will be
> presented to the Board
> for ratification by the end of 2020;


I'd add a few more points:
- To handle workload and different languages, local boards should be
selected as the first step of the process, with possible escalation to a
global board if necessary (eg. for conflict-of-interest reason).
- To minimize bias the boards should consist of people from different
areas. As long as the local DR processes remain operational (ANI and the
likes), there should be a clear separation of powers: CoC board members
should not be involved with local DR to avoid concentration of power. Being
an admin should not be a requirement, in fact adminship and dispute
resolution should be separate roles, as the latter requires specific
training or experience, which is not part of the requirements to be admin.
- There should be at least 2 independent global boards so one can review
the other's decisions and handle appeals. Cases should be evaluated by the
board that has more members unrelated to the involved parties.
- Functionaries and board members should be regularly reviewed and terms
limited to a few years.

About the DR process:
- Most of our communication is publicly visible on-wiki, therefore the
cases should be resolved in public. Transparency is crucial for community
review and a great learning opportunity about dispute resolution.
- Privately handled cases should only happen when all parties agree to
it, so one party can't use "privacy" as a means to avoid the burden of
proof. Non-public evidence should only be taken into account if there is a
very strong justification, proportional to the sanction that comes from it.
- Reports, however, should be created privately and published only when the
case opens. Before the case opens the reporter might seek advice and help
to create the report from people they trust. I've outlined a process draft
for this in the context of the User Reporting System
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_health_initiative/User_reporting_system_consultation_2019#Factual,_evidence_based_reporting_tool_-_draft,_proposal>
.
- Reports should be treated with respect, as the personal experience of a
person. Nobody should be sanctioned for what a report contains, whether the
boards, or the community finds that true or false, as that would be a
deterrent to reporting influential users, who made a mistake or lost their
way.
- The focus should be on dispute *resolution. *Disputes and the resulting
reports often start with disagreements, not bad intent towards each other.
Mediation is an effective approach to finding a mutually agreeable
resolution in these situations. Such resolutions create a more cooperative
environment and allow for personal growth, learning from mistakes.
Mediators should be hired and board members offered mediator training to
support this path.
- When necessary, only the minimal sanctions should be applied that prevent
the reported behaviour, to reduce the abuse potential of blocking. Partial
blocks was a great step in this direction: typical conduct issues should be
addressed early on with minor sanctions, not after years of misconduct,
when a ban becomes warranted. Bans and project-wide blocks should only be
used after numerous escalations and repeated sanctions, or in clear-cut
cases of extreme misconduct.

Dispute resolution is difficult and often requires effort from all parties.
The above approaches are unusual compared to the traditional handling of
disputes, which often results in one-sided sanctioning of the party with
less support from the community. However, adopting new ways of dispute
resolution is necessary to create an inclusive community, where editors are
treated equally and fairly, regardless of their status.

These are just superf

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

[Aron Demian]

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 10:32, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
> when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
> non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope
> of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
>

 In August 2019 this question was brought up in the first round (iteration)
of the Recommendations. It was unfortunately intertwined with another
heavy, but tangential topic: the ToU. Accordingly half of the discussions
are unrelated to this question on the page. There was quite a bit of drama
caused by the superficial proposal, I'm surprised it's already forgotten
:-D
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_1/Diversity/9#Q_3_What_will_change_because_of_the_Recommendation?

The most acceptable solution proposed at that time was a separate wiki that
would run the same software as Commons:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki
That's a pretty good proposal (actually the second one in years) that has
run out of energy, just like the previous one.


IMHO Commons and the mediawiki software gives no benefits over popular and
easy-to-use image sharing services for non-wikipedians. Additionally, on
wiki newcomers can get dragged into wikidramas despite their best intent
and there is no protection for them. Learning the non-straightforward
communication patterns on-wiki and establishing a "standing" is a
multi-year effort, which simply is not necessary on the popular platforms.
There content creators can focus on building their follower-base instead.
The features and services they benefit from don't coincide with the
features the wiki software and communities are creating or looking for.
Uploading to Wikimedia is more like an ideological statement that might
require significant investment without benefits or with unexpected negative
benefits.
Tl;dr: why would anyone take a hard and uncomfortable path, when there is
an easy and beneficial path.

Regardless, a not-strictly-free media-hosting wiki would be great imho. For
wikipedians. To develop a product and culture that's suitable for regular
photographers would require talented and strongly motivated IT and HR
personnel, which is not present in the WMF, nor is it attainable: we've
seen people, who have put their hearts into their work, just to leave
prematurely, under unclear circumstances. Presumably the work environment
is not supportive of people who could envision and manifest such a product.


> 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
> Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
> Wikimedia Commons.


That's true for me. As a newcomer / non-wikipedian the first issue I had
with "Commons" was: "What does it mean?" I think outside Wikimedia this
name might be meaningless for many people.
"The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all
members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a
habitable earth."
Though there is logic in that, it's very abstract. I don't associate that
naturally with "Let's share my photos!" Rather, it makes me think of
sharing the water I bring from a fountain.

I remember when I've learned it's about sharing media - images primarily -
I was thrilled. After uploading dozens of images, requesting and learning
AWB - to effectively manage images in batches - my impression is it's good
to have, but takes serious, hard work to use it properly, involving some
advanced level form-filling skills, that's fun to learn (at least for me,
just for the challenge), but not fun to do regularly and I assume it's not
even fun to learn for many people.


> 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
> seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
> platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
> longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
> steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
>

4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
> Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a
> major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
> instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
> am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
> Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
> email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
> star) is good for motivation as well.
>

IMHO the primary motivation to use those platforms is the social aspect:
creating a follower-base, that brings the benefits: patreon, social
influencing, gigs.
Wikis don't have these incentives, the rules of the game (in terms of game
theory) are fundamentally different, social status is not the result 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Aron Demian]

My 2 cents: Imho the pressure from English Wikipedia on other projects of
the movement is very realistic in many kinds of matters, that I've
experienced myself too. Other projects are not independent socially or
culturally, the rules, practices, expectations and editorial behaviour is
strongly related to that on enwp with all its positive *and* negative
benefits. Often the negative benefits seem to outweigh the positive,
unfortunately.

Aron

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:17, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing
> community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other
> Wikipedias.

En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply with its
> editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for en:WP.
> Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for content,
> within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they choose to
> emulate en:WP that is their prerogative.
> If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the
> subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince
> other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that they
> should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence
> from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing
> communities of those projects for consideration.
> If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is
> not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP
> community who have no authority over Commons.
> As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for
> confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are
> sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally
> but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
> English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
> English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
> the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.
>
> Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
> informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of
> a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their
> maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
> gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
> conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
> other languages is frustrated from within WMF.  We could do a better job, a
> job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The
> result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
> knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
> conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about 300
> > projects and make several good points about how people confuse Wikipedia
> > with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other
> > projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to
> be
> > highly toxic".  Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you
> using
> > the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously
> > objected to? Something else that is not obvious?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> >
> > Hoi,
> > Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as a
> > unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 projects
> > and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.
> >
> > When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that
> > English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative
> > effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with
> > English Wikipedia.
> >
> > * Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for
> projects
> > other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published
> > * New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia,
> the
> > notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

[Aron Demian]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 22:35, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> I have just come across a case on en.Wikipedia where the daughter of
> an article subject added details of his funeral (his death in 1984,w
> as already recorded) and his view about an indent in his life.

[...]
>
As well as being reverted, she now has three templates on her talk
> page; two warning her of a CoI, and sandwiching one notifying her of a
> discussion about her on the COI noticeboard. These total 4094
> characters or 665 words.
>

This is a topic that's seldom discussed and somewhat taboo in certain
areas, therefore not many people are aware of what experiences many
newcomers have. These events go generally unnoticed, but if you were
wondering why editor retention is a constant issue, the pattern that lies
behind this single case you brought to our attention is a top reason.

I've tried to help in a similar case of a footballer unknown in
English-speaking countries. She was repeatedly reverted without the edits
being evaluated or the rules being explained. She never returned and I was
frowned upon by the admin, who was involved, for trying to help.

I've noticed this "shoot first, ask later" pattern in many cases, not just
with newcomers. Unfortunately, this is all too common and a contributing
factor to the toxicity.

I've noticed the following issues:
1) The general unwelcoming treatment of newcomers: "noobs" are considered
lacking the proper understanding and necessary knowledge, unless they jump
right into RC patrolling, which is not the sign of a new editor.
2) The lack of protection given to newcomers:  "You have no rights" being
explicitly said to one newcomer, that I recall.
3) Preferential treatment and authority bias: the experienced/established
user is "trusted", thus must be right, therefore unwelcoming - and often
hostile - conduct is not considered uncivil or it's "not actionable".
4) The excessively vilifying application of the most frowned-upon rules
such as COI, socking. Editors tagged as such are treated the same
regardless of the effect of their actions and whether that has caused any
damage, which can scale from none to introducing bias to many articles for
years.

Currently, there is no effort to mitigate these issues, to improve the
policies and community practices. It's also a problem that while the
"biting newbies" and "civility" policies are very well written, these are
almost never applied and definitely not in the protection of newcomers. By
that I don't mean these should always result in sanctions, but that the
community - and primarily who get involved with handling disputes - should
take these seriously, approach with a neutral mindset and remind the
editors about our policies, but that almost never happens and such
complaints are either ignored or blindly decided in favor of the editor
with more supporters, enabling the abuse of newcomers.

Tl;dr:  newcomers don't enjoy the safety net created by editors who know
and care for each other and the community processes are not set up to
create a welcoming and/or safe environment, this purpose is not manifested
in any kind of endeavors or practices. If the WMF and the movement take the
Mid-Term target of a welcoming environment seriously, that's a difficult,
long-term target that will take a lot of effort.

Aron (Demian)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>