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 <https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/how-wikipedia-covers-the-history-of-the-holocaust-in-poland.html> .) 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 <effeietsand...@gmail.com> 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 <jayen...@gmail.com> 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 >> much higher standard than implied consent.[3] "Explicit consent" is telling >> an author, "Yes, it is fine for you to mention my name and workplace in >> your essay." >> >> And unlike local policy, the UCoC says that it covers conduct outside of >> Wikimedia spaces as well. It says it applies to – >> >> *all Wikimedia projects, technical spaces, in-person and virtual events, >> as well as the following instances:* >> >> *Private, public and semi-public interactions* >> *Discussions of disagreement and expression of solidarity across >> community members* >> *Issues of technical development* >> *Aspects of content contribution* >> *Cases of representing affiliates/communities with external partners* >> >> On the face of it, "public interactions" and "expressions of >> disagreement" would seem to include writings a Wikimedian publishes about >> another contributor in a journal, a newspaper, a blog, etc., or statements >> they make about them in press interviews. >> >> ArbCom on the other hand appears to have taken the view that the UCoC >> only applies to places "like Wikimedia listservs, affiliate zoom calls, and >> Wikimedia in-person events. But that doesn't include peer reviewed papers." >> >> So, the question I am now unclear about is: Are Wikimedians communicating >> about Wikipedia outside of Wikimedia spaces – from academic journals, >> newspapers and TV interviews to blogs and discussion forums – bound by the >> UCoC (and specifically Section 3.1) or not? Very specifically, are they >> permitted to share contributors' private information such as their >> workplace address in these various venues, without obtaining explicit >> consent to do so? >> >> Clarification would be very welcome. I feel we do need some guidance as >> to what the words in the UCoC are intended to mean in practice, and how >> much leeway local projects should have in interpreting its intent. >> >> Regards, >> Andreas >> >> >> [1] >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland/Analysis#Analysis_of_Andreas'_evidence_(UCoC_violation) >> [2] >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information >> [3] See e.g. the GDPR-related explanation here: >> https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/consent/what-is-valid-consent/#what5 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/WOYBUELH4EQ7ZQEBUKRS3GDPWVWGIXUY/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > 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/CERXNJOID2U5CZQYRQDBVZ6INKS7WYDP/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ 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/BZIAUVF2WOXR5T7M7E3FIENGMRNRSOCP/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
