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

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Jonathan,

Great post! Thank you for introducing a fresh and compelling perspective
into the conversation, though I would suggest that this needs adjusting to
take into account that Wikimedians' circumstances are vastly different
depnding on where they live – a point I will return to below.

On-wiki, meanwhile, one of the arbitrators, Wugapodes, interprets[1] the
Universal Code of Conduct to mean that sharing another Wikimedian's
personal information and all the other bulletpoint examples of harassment
in the Universal Code of Conduct[2] are *only* unacceptable if the
behaviour fulfils certain criteria laid out in the section's preamble.

This is actually an interesting point. I will explain what he means.

Let's remind ourselves first how the UCoC's Harassment section begins
(emphases mine, in ALLCAPS so they show in the list archive):



3.1 – Harassment

This INCLUDES any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or
upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered
the most likely main outcome. Behaviour can be considered harassment if it
is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a
global, intercultural environment. Harassment often takes the form of
emotional abuse, especially towards people who are in a vulnerable
position, and may include contacting workplaces or friends and family
members in an effort to intimidate or embarrass. In some cases, behaviour
that would not rise to the level of harassment in a single case can become
harassment through repetition. Harassment INCLUDES but is not limited to:

[...]

*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.



Wugapodes argues that sharing someone's name and workplace without their
consent should *only* be unacceptable if it is judged by ArbCom to have
been done *primarily* to "intimidate, outrage or upset a person" and is
"beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global,
intercultural environment". Not performing this extra test, Wugapodes says,
would lead to "absurd results":

*'In the line you want us to take absurdly literally, we have the line
["]sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the
projects.["] Well, under your interpretation, looks like half my friends
and family are harassing me. Let me call over my partner, "Yes, hi honey,
remember when you told your friends that I'm a Wikipedia arbitrator? Well,
unfortunately, I did not give you explicit permission to do so and you have
therefore harassed me. I have reported you to the Foundation.'*

I agree with him inasmuch as the literal meaning of the passage he quotes
is patently absurd. (I have said exactly the same before.)

But does the community agree that it is okay for a Wikimedian to share a
fellow Wikimedian's legal name, workplace and so on, as long as it is not
done "primarily" to intimidate etc. and is in line with "what a reasonable
person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural
environment"?

Historically, outing rules on Wikipedia have been much stricter.

One of the reasons for this is that even if there is no *intent* to
intimidate or harm, outing can have *extremely* severe consequences for
Wikimedians, depending on (1) what they write about and (2) where they live
and work – recall the two Wikimedians currently serving long jail sentences
in Saudi Arabia[3].

Moreover, Wugapodes' interpretation, while internally consistent, does not
follow from the UCoC text as it stands. The preamble says what harassment "
INCLUDES" and the bulletpoints also begin with "Harassment INCLUDES ..."

If I have two sentences, "Fruit includes things that taste sweet" and
"Fruit includes apples", it does not logically follow that apples are only
fruit if they taste sweet. Am I the only person who sees a logical
non-sequitur here?

Andreas


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=1153350996
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Special_report





On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 4:34 PM  wrote:

> Hello Andreas,
>
> By way of disclosure I am a researcher at the Yale Applied Cryptography
> Laboratory and I have been studying the tension between the right to
> privacy and the need for legal accountability when content is posted
> online.
>
> My working theory is that we need to avoid creating lawless zones on the
> internet.  When content is posted online, the poster has to be accountable
> in some way to avoid social harms like the harassment of individuals or
> groups.
>
> One way we create accountability on Wikipe

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

[jehochman]

Hello Andreas, 

By way of disclosure I am a researcher at the Yale Applied Cryptography 
Laboratory and I have been studying the tension between the right to privacy 
and the need for legal accountability when content is posted online. 

My working theory is that we need to avoid creating lawless zones on the 
internet.  When content is posted online, the poster has to be accountable in 
some way to avoid social harms like the harassment of individuals or groups.

One way we create accountability on Wikipedia and within Wikimedia projects is 
to say that personal information may not be weaponized to intimidate another 
editor.  I strongly support our policy against doxing. However, intent matters. 
 

If I find an account that appears to be connected to a business, and it is 
spamming Wikipedia with links to that business, it is not unreasonable for me 
to point out the apparent connection and suggest that the account should be 
held accountable for violating terms of service against spam. On the other 
hand, if I name an editor to try to silence them, that is clearly wrongdoing by 
me.

If a Wikipedian goes to another platform, like Wikipediaocracy, or a similar 
site that has minimal editorial standards, and posts doxing content or 
defamatory content using a pseudonym, our only way to create accountability is 
to sanction the account of the Wikipedian. There's a void of legal 
accountability when dealing with a pseudonymous account and a site like 
Wikipediaocracy that  enjoys Section 230 immunity (i.e. only the poster is 
responsible for its content, not the platform).

In contrast, if a researcher writes under their real life name in a publication 
that exercises editorial control, a person targeted by that content has strong 
recourse. A purported victim can sue the author for defamation, and they can 
also sue the publication who has exercised editorial control. It seems 
unreasonable for Wikipedia to sanction the author when there is already legal 
accountability, especially if the author may only be a casual Wikipedian (not 
sure if that's true in the case you mentioned).

Because these two situations are different, Wikimedia should take a nuanced 
approach that holds Wikimedians responsible for doxing and harassment, but 
avoids chilling free speech, especially among academics. This might require 
rewriting the Code of Conduct or issuing guidance on when to apply the Code to 
off-site activities.

Best regards,
Jonathan Hochman
(Jehochman)
___
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/LGCHIZEL747NLKX7R3BDNCTANSPUAXUD/
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 
t

[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 contributors

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

[effe iets anders]

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 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, pre

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Brock and all,

You mention academic standards. In academic contexts it is perfectly normal
to level personal critiques at opposing scholars. And naming the
institutions where scholars with opposing viewpoints teach is arguably
essential, as well as a matter of professional courtesy.

But the Wikimedia movement is composed of amateurs, not scholars. As such,
it has generally insisted that editors' real-world identities or
professional qualifications are irrelevant to any critique of their
participation.

It is true that the contributors whose workplaces the essay's authors chose
to divulge in their essay are themselves academics. But they are not
scholars in the discipline that this argument is about (historiography and
Holocaust studies). They might as well be car mechanics, shopkeepers or
dentists, as far as academic expertise in this subject area is concerned.
(I wouldn't be making the argument I am making here if all the people
concerned knew each other in an academic context, i.e. if they were all
historians having regular scholarly arguments across different publication
venues, *one of which* happened to be Wikipedia.)

The Universal Code of Conduct introduced a couple of years ago and endorsed
by the community for enforcement requires "explicit consent" from
Wikimedians before their personal data can be shared. This requirement,
which arguably makes the Code even more stringent than traditional English
Wikipedia policy, was not met.

Now, the essay in question here is currently being promoted internationally
at academic conferences as a model for other scholars to follow.[1] Its
methodology relied on interviewing editors contributing to a contentious
topic area that had been subject to multiple on-wiki arbitrations before.
It ended up endorsing one side of the conflict, and "naming and shaming"
editors on the other side.

The authors are correct that this model could be applied to other on-wiki
conflict areas. An Indian scholar writing about the India/Pakistan
conflict, for example, could review past on-wiki dispute resolution
proceedings, identify interested parties and banned editors whose views
they find sympathetic, and use opposition research gathered from their
interviewees to expose Pakistani editors – and vice versa. The same goes
for the China/Taiwan/Hong Kong topic area, the Israel/Palestine conflict,
pro-Russia/anti-Russia disputes, and so forth.

Do we really want to normalise editors' workplaces being disclosed in such
academic writing?

I am perfectly aware that ultimately there may be little that can be done
about unwanted workplace disclosures. Laws differ from country to country,
but many forms of doxing are not actually illegal. Indeed, some are morally
justifiable, or even a legitimate part of law enforcement. But as far as I
can see the doxing done in this essay was gratuitous. The essay would not
have lost any of its academic integrity and significance if it had
refrained from disclosing editors' legal names and workplaces.

In formulating the Universal Code of Conduct, surely the Board had an idea
in mind of protecting volunteer contributors from external harassment, as
far as possible. External harassment is different from on-wiki criticism of
someone's contributions or participating in on-wiki dispute resolution (an
avenue that is available to scholars just like it is available to anyone
else). Every editor should be open to having their contributions
criticised, but external harassment is a different matter.

As I see it, the Board of Trustees decided to make observing the Universal
Code of Conduct the "price of admission", as it were, for active
participation in the Wikimedia movement. There may always be scholars who
are unfamiliar with the Code, or decide to ignore it even though they know
that the code requires them to obtain Wikimedian's explicit consent before
sharing their personal information.

But the Wikimedia movement is not completely powerless here. We can
certainly say to academics, Don't divulge people's identities – especially
if, as in this case, they are already targets for harassment – 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.

The Universal Code of Conduct is new. I am not saying that academics who
make a mis-step should have the book thrown at them. But ArbCom should not
overlook obvious violations either.

Ultimately, I think there are good chances that – once aware of the issue –
academics will by and large do without doxing contributors.

Regards,
Andreas

[1] In a couple of days, for example, at Lund University:
https://www.hist.lu.se/historia/kalendarium/evenemang/hogre-seminariet-jan-grabowski-och-shira-klein-wikipedias-intentional-distortion-history-holocaust/




On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 2:45 PM  wrote:

> In fact, just to expand on this, in order for it to be harrassment of
> defamation or what have you, it first has to NOT be appropriate academic
> res

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

Correction:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


In my earlier email I said:

*"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)."*

This was incorrect. All the contributor did, well over ten years ago after
having been doxed, was to say (in frustration) that if people wanted more
personal info, they could find it on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

I am really sorry to have gotten that detail wrong, because it makes a
material difference, as far as the letter of policy is concerned. For even
back then, WP:OUTING expressly required the *posting of a link*.

A.

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 2:00 PM 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
> the UCoC. The UCoC – which we are told defines a minimum standard that
> takes precedence over any and all local policies and must not be ignored or
> circumvented – demands that Wikimedians wanting to share other
> contributors' personal information obtain "explicit consent" from the
> contributors concerned. "Explicit consent" is generally considered to be a
> mu

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

[brock . weller]

In fact, just to expand on this, in order for it to be harrassment of 
defamation or what have you, it first has to NOT be appropriate academic 
research. I think we can all agree that mainstream academic works are, even 
when highly critical is not defamatory or harrassment. The position that the 
UCOC mandates we punish an academic for their work means that we in our own 
voice are disputing the collective judgement of the journal and its field. I 
doubt that's what you intend, but nevertheless it's what would be required.
___
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/HWQWLPU2CC57QTIRXL6WMYNW2Y3M2G42/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

[brock . weller]

I would be extremely surprised if we substituted our judgement on what is 
appropriate academic research for the judgement of the editors of a well 
respected peer-reviewed journal in its field.
___
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/O4RRV7VKQNV6S3TPS6T5ST4LPE7VU77M/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org