Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct: Difference between revisions
LincolnBot (talk | contribs) m Bot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 180 days) to Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Archive 5 |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:LincolnBot/archiveconfig |
|||
== Redundant with Terms of Use? == |
|||
|archive = Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
|algo = old(180d) |
|||
|counter = 5 |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talk archive}} |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
}}{{Universal Code of Conduct/Talk}} |
|||
== AGF == |
|||
How'd this not be redundant with [[wmf:Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities|Section 4 of the Terms of Use]] on refraining from certain activities (and behaviours)? —[[User:MarcoAurelio|MarcoAurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|talk]]) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC) |
|||
"Assume good faith...All Wikimedians should assume unless evidence otherwise exists that others are here to collaboratively improve the projects, but this should not be used to justify statements with a harmful impact." |
|||
{{Ping|MarcoAurelio}}Thank you for your comment. Section 4 of Wikimedia Terms of Use does cover some behavioural guidelines along with content guidelines such as copyright infringement and paid contributions, however it is not a comprehensive list. It is very open to interpretation and not often applied as a guideline on wiki. The Universal Code of Conduct aims to help communities actually apply the section 4 of the Wikimedia Terms of Use by spelling out in more detail, what is covered by them and more focussed conduct guidelines. --[[User:NNair (WMF)|NNair (WMF)]] ([[User talk:NNair (WMF)|talk]]) 17:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Would it not be more efficient to rewrite Section 4 to be more of a "Projects should have rules that enforce [x], support [y], etc..."? [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 17:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Ping|Vermont}} Hi Vermont, interesting point. Any changes to the TOU will have to be approved by the legal team, and we’ll be working with them as this process progresses. A difficulty there is that the section might get lengthy, as language could drift towards legalese. Having a readable and concise TOU is important, so it might be best that the TOU references the UCoC rather than having it live there in full. We’ll let them know about this suggestion, and get their opinions on it.--[[User:NNair (WMF)|NNair (WMF)]] ([[User talk:NNair (WMF)|talk]]) 06:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Having a readable and concise UCoC is similarly important. I would hope that your vision for a UCoC is one that is more of a basis for how local conduct policies should look, rather than an attempt at removing all local conduct policies and replacing it with a global, English, UCoC.[[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 10:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::^ Very much this. I hope WMF realizes that if they try to force a code of conduct that is written by themselves on the entire community, it will not go well. The community should really be taking the initiative on this matter. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 17:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::This is a good direction I think. Similarly to how the Foundation put out a [https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people resolution] that all projects should adopt a local policy that upholds basic principles with regard to living persons. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 12:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
So AGF will now be enforced on projects without AGF as a guideline? Presumably, there are projects where AGF is just an essay, where guidelines don't provide any guidance on this, or, like [[n:en:|my home project]], [[n:en:Wikinews:Never assume|where there is an explicit prohibition on assumptions of faith, good or bad]]. [[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] ([[User talk:Heavy Water|talk]]) 18:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{rto|Vermont}} The [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Community_feedback_at_conferences contents to be expected in the CoC] are in big part already existing conduct policies and guidelines throughout the projects. However these rules are scattered, and hard to find, therefore unknown to many editors. I've spent the greater part of ca. two months to discover the policies and guidelines of enwiki, and I still find new essays and explanations to the rules. A CoC wouldn't impose rules much different from the already existing ones, and there was no mention of any local policies being replaced. The point of an UCoC is to collect in one place the basic conduct guidelines, in a {{tq|"readable and concise"}} format, thus old and new users alike can read it and be aware of it. The awareness of these rules will possibly help the communities to call out and address conduct issues even before those escalate to sanctions, and also make us more mindful of our conduct. —<span style="color:#25dd;text-shadow:0 0 10px #2c0;font-family:Segoe print">[[User talk:Aron Manning|''Aron Man.''</span>]]🍂 [[Special:Contributions/Aron Manning|<sup style="text-shadow:0 0 10px #28a">''hist''</sup>]]🌾 18:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: @[[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] I have always had concern about AGF and its many, equally off-putting analogs whereby any expression of disapproval, suspicion, critique or normal human emotions like frustration put the editor into a gray area right off the bat. I'm not sure of the correct venue to raise such concerns, but in my experience this approach typically goes nowhere precisely because anyone can ignore reason, then cite AGF and a slew of other rules you're arguably in violation of when you call them a jackass. If you happen to have an incredible amount of restraint, patience and persistence and can't be cited for anything else, open-ended catchalls like WP:NOTHERE (a blatant contradiction of AGF by any reasonable interpretation) usually get the job done. AGF is enforced exactly when it is convenient for them to do so. Otherwise there are plenty of other expedient rules and essays that provide grounds upon which any given user may be summarily ejected from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Perhaps I'll write an essay of my own on the subject. What do you think? [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) |
|||
::The TOU were written by, and belong to, the community. Even if changes also require Legal's approval, one can't make substantial changes to it without the community's consent. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 17:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:The BLP framework is something we have been looking at. It is definitely an applicable approach. Similarly, the UCoC is aiming to come up with a basic, minimum standard for behavioural guidelines, and the idea emphasizes the fact that projects with strong guidelines must be able to abide by and uphold their respective local behavioural policies. In terms of process, the Foundation aims to facilitate the process but the whole project exceedingly depends on the feedback and ideas from the community. We’re working on a more detailed outline/timeline for conversations that we’ll post here. --[[User:NNair (WMF)|NNair (WMF)]] ([[User talk:NNair (WMF)|talk]]) 03:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: @[[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] And since "assume good faith" only enforceable to the extent that we ''say'' what we ''assume'', the rule could be equivalently stated as ''"do not question the motives of others."'' Without euphemistic phrasing that uses adjectives like "good" and "faith", the rule sounds exactly as Orwellian as it is. How ''should'' one make critical statements? If users are obliged to understate criticism and act as though others have no possible ulterior motive then critical discourse is severely debased. The expression of critique, discontent and frustration all go hand-in-hand and they are no less important than the expression of joy or any other "positive" message. When policy demands that users "avoid negativity" they should consider what that really means. What would we have besides a twilight zone of fawning, obsequious consumers and grinning, unchecked psychopathy? [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) |
|||
== Already rejected == |
|||
: The rest after part two is fairly straightforward and more or less amounts to "don't harass people or wreck the site". Part two strikes me as unusual because it's presented as advice. One can't interpret it as a set of positive obligations because policy statements like "Be ready to challenge and adapt your own understanding, expectations and behaviour as a Wikimedian" are nonspecific and obviously outside any given project's authority to enforce. It seems worthwhile to make the distinction between enforceable policy and statements like ''"Practice empathy."'' The needle in the haystack here is AGF, which at first appears to fit in with the rest of the ostensibly well-intended (if banal) advice but when re-worded to properly match the scope of a project's authority to enforce, turns out to be ''"do not question the motives of others."'' In compliance with AGF, I assume of course that this is all coincidental. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) |
|||
If nearly [[Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Terms_of_Use_for_the_WMF|50 editors]] randomly come across a proposal to ban the WMF from doing something, and every single one of them supports preventing the WMF from doing that thing, the WMF should probably not do that thing. If you try to push for it anyways, we ''will'' have a crisis on our hands, and anyone trying to do any productive work will despair as we yet again need hundreds of volunteers to try to stop the WMF from causing yet another catastrophe. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 17:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: Most of the open-source communities have adapted a Code-of-Conduct in recent years, with success. They had their own, difficult debates. Wikipedia is far behind these communities, in terms of civility, openness, constructive debate, and cooperation. The introduction of a CoC is a step forward, by discouraging unwholesome behaviors, that's so common in our online interactions. It is understandable, however, that some people, who haven't experienced the benefits of a CoC in a project, have fears about the application of new rules. I'm sure, after some time most of these people will find, that being mindful of our conduct, and following a CoC creates a more healthy community, where contributing is a more uplifting experience. [[User:Aron Manning|— Aron M]] ([[User talk:Aron Manning|talk]]) 17:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::@Aron M: Could you provide links to a few examples that of such CoCs in other online communities? Thanks, [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 17:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Indeed. Really, at least at en.wp, AGF is the rule from on high — when it's convenient. The framework of en.wn's [[n:en:Wikinews:Never assume|never assume]] initially seems like it would turn users into a hostile bunch always suspicious of each other, but I've observed it actually ''lowers the temperature'' of community politics, even where strong interpersonal conflict is present. In fact, the honesty allowed by freedom from AGF and actual enforcement of [[n:en:Wikinews:Etiquette|the ''de jure'' etiquette guideline]] seems to make arguments clearer and allow us to summarily deal with disruptive elements, without politeness and often with what the UCoC defines as "insults". "We expect all Wikimedians to show respect for others" without "exceptions based on standing, skills...in the Wikimedia projects or movement": Even on en.wp, individuals judged not to meet {{w|WP:CIR}} ("skills") or vandals/spammers ("standing") don't get shown "respect". In the eyes of the community, they've lost it. And what would} "respect" entail? Apologizing when blocking them? |
|||
The problem many perceive is not that the community might be healthier with a CoC, but that this initiative is coming from the "T&S team", who (by contract) are required to represent the interests of the WMF above all other considerations. Simply 'managing' the input from experienced volunteers who are actually the community that a CoC will be applied to, is not the same thing as seeing the WMF buy in to limiting their own behaviours as part of agreeing a volunteer driven, volunteer agreed, CoC. |
|||
::UCoC enforcement at projects with policies or guidelines conflicting it like en.wn's will be interesting to watch unfold; I expect, per "1 – Introduction" the WMF plans to take OFFICE action when a project isn't enforcing the UCoC in favor of its own policies or guidelines. |
|||
The '''100% supported''' vote linked above was for '''''the board should create "terms of use" that the foundation has to comply with in their dealings with the communities'''''. If WMF employees, contractors and board members were to start there, rather than engaging in an expensive programme of managing stakeholders in order to force a WMF view of the world on everyone else, that would be a super starting point that the community could be reassured about. Amongst other advantages it provides the starting principles for community governance of actions such as the undocumented and un-appeal-able global blocks of long standing unpaid project volunteers by anonymous WMF employees and contractors who have access to the WMF Office account. Not that this is an argument against WMF T&S taking "probably" justifiable actions, just that the community is way, way, overdue for a better governance process of WMF T&S that visibly respects our ''community'' shared values of transparency and openness. |
|||
::I find it unsurprising in the three months since I raised this question no WMF staffer has responded, even when, last month, I left a message on the talk page of a staffer involved in discussions above. But I have to AGF here, don't I? Oh well. I hope someday en.wn will be successful enough for the entire community to fork off (hey, I wonder if I'll get OFFICE-glocked for saying that). [[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] ([[User talk:Heavy Water|talk]]) 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: Perhaps the best remedy is exposure, e.g. essays, articles, etc. that concisely and accurately describe how rules like AGF are abused to avoid accountability and worded euphemistically to serve as a debauched stand-in for principle. We have no bearing on this policy except by public critique. Most of us are hardly born critics, least of all myself. We want to cooperate and one's calling, if they feel they have one, is almost always constructive. So many people would rather not exist at all than abandon their purpose. One faces a serious dilemma because messing around with the umpteenth variation of the multi-armed bandit problem or some obscure conjecture about conformal mappings while this demented twilight zone is progressively imposed upon the entirety of western culture starts to seem like grotesque misassignment of priorities. Knowing you're right but being at a lost for words while some two-faced shyster lectures you about social justice, gender prounouns, etc. is well likely to be the most annoying moment of one's life. We are in this position partly for lack of good examples to learn from. Perhaps I should attempt to curate some, or make up a course on the subject for Wikiversity. In any case, I'm not just going to let things go their way, nor should anyone else. Orwell wrote an excellent essay, "On Politics and the English Language". The essay is accurate in that Orwell recognizes the problem and identifies many of it salient components, but it is also an imprecise and somewhat awkward essay. Even Orwell was taxed in attempting to describe and generalize the issue. Anyway, I will probably use some of what I've written here in an essay of my own. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) |
|||
== Wikimedia LGBT+ meeting minutes October 2019 == |
|||
::::I wondered if you were going to go there. The rejection of AGF, for en.wn, is simply a variation in its rules as a Wikimedia project, not an endorsement of right-wing politics, or any other political ideologies, for that matter. I say this to defend ''Wikinews''' reputation. [[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] ([[User talk:Heavy Water|talk]]) 23:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Wikimedia LGBT User Group October 2019]] |
|||
::::: Go where? I do not subscribe to "right wing ideology", nor is anything I've written intended as a dog-whistle to imply that I do. Take my post at face value. Just because I am irritated at the media's rhetorical abuse of the phrase "social justice" does not mean that I resent or do not value social justice. Naturally I don't demand that you AGF, but if you'd like me to clarify my opinion on any given issue, then please just ask rather than make presumptions. |
|||
Team LGBT+ discussed this proposal in its October meeting. The Wiki LGBT+ community has discussed conduct and misconduct in almost all of its meetings over the past few years and considers itself as a major stakeholder in any broad-reaching conduct proposal. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 20:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi [[User:Bluerasberry]], thanks for showing up and letting us know about your discussions! We are aware that such discussions are happening in different places and are hoping to gather the input from them in the upcoming consultation about the Universal Code of Conduct. Actually we kickstarted some of those conversations with our session at Wikimania and we are trying start more of them. So we are definitely looking forward to hearing about your ideas and experiences! --[[User:CSteigenberger (WMF)|CSteigenberger (WMF)]] ([[User talk:CSteigenberger (WMF)|talk]]) 09:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Are we having a session about this in Boston next month? [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 12:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hello {{ping|GreenMeansGo}} {{ping|Bluerasberry}}I'll be at WikiConference North America next month and will be available to have one on one meetings, and also to participate in an unconference session, too, about the UCoC. [[User:SPoore (WMF)|SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative]] ([[User talk:SPoore (WMF)|talk]]) 16:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|SPoore (WMF)}} I will be at that event and see you then and there. I will take notes and report back to Wiki LGBT+. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 17:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::: More importantly, nothing at all was said about wikinews or AGF that could possibly be construed as an endorsement of "right-wing ideology". There's no need to imitate the media's dramatic ritual of "disavowal", though it appears I've unconsciously done so too. It is not obvious that this pavlovian, knee-jerk reaction makes no sense whatsoever in this context here? Suppose I am "right wing", whatever that means to you. Suppose Hitler escaped to Brazil and I am his bastard grandson if you like. We were having a productive discourse. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) |
|||
== What on earth == |
|||
::::: Another instance of euphemism is the third bullet point of part 2.1: "''Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves.''" One assumes it means that we must use someone's preferred name and gender pronouns and the correct name of their race or tribe. That's entirely fine, but then, why doesn't it say exactly that? Since the UCoC already has a strong anti-harassment policy, would that not suffice? Otherwise it is very open to interpretation and therefore easy to abuse. If one uses preferred pronouns and names, but states they disagree that sex reassignment is indicated for gender dysphoria, are they in violation of the policy as it's worded now? If so, then fine, but then the policy should say as much. I would still comply with that rule and use the site, because it's then understood by everyone that the content is not an unbiased reflection of public opinion or consensus. How is vague, sugar-coated policy with carte blanche potential for censorship "left-wing"? How is one "right-wing" for speaking against it? [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) |
|||
has the preamble of Constitution of India got to do with ''Universal values of Wikimedia communities''? [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 14:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*More particularly, the image chosen to represent the concept of a universal code of conduct includes [[:File:Wikimedia Unity.jpg|a commitment to socialism, a monument to Chiang Kai-shek, the primary site for public executions during the French Revolution, and a memorial to the dead of the US Navy]], to quote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIridescent&type=revision&diff=926801187&oldid=926757963 Iridescent]. This is pretty much the opposite of what most users might consider the objective, but then again perhaps the message this collage suggests is quite intentional. It should be rethought. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 00:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi both, thanks for the feedback on the collage; we can look at some of the images for improvement. |
|||
::{{Ping|Winged Blades of Godric}} The constitution of a democratic country represents people’s voices, people’s representation, and togetherness in diversity. It’s one thing that binds every citizen of a country together irrespective of their differences and cultural values. This aptly resonates with the concept of unity and universal values in our movement. Then why not include a picture of the preamble of the constitution of not only the biggest democracy but also the most culturally diverse country in the world to signify those values? With this picture, I was definitely not focussing on the ‘socialist’ part, but perhaps this one can replace the one that’s already there. |
|||
::{{Ping|Risker}} I hear your concerns about the history of the Chiang Kai-shek square. I chose it because of how this square holds a sentimental significance for Taiwan as it is now the place where democracy is celebrated, rather than Chiang Kai-shek himself. But I can see how it could be read as divisive in terms of Chinese history. |
|||
::If you have suggestions for new images, let me know. Best,--[[User:NNair (WMF)|NNair (WMF)]] ([[User talk:NNair (WMF)|talk]]) 04:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::See [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/17/5-insights-on-the-racial-tolerance-and-ethnicity-maps-from-an-ethnic-conflict-professor/ this map]. No, India is not culturally tolerant. In general, I don't really see the point of promotional images for a UCoC, but if you really want one please use uncontroversial and globally relatable images. [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 10:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I agree with WBG, Risker and Vermont, and I'm concerned with the direction this is taking. —[[User:MarcoAurelio|MarcoAurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|talk]]) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree with WBG, Risker, Vermont and MarcoAurelio. To avoid repetition, my lengthy thoughts on the crass insensitivity of the particular images chosen, the impracticality of trying to illustrate "universal values" with any kind of photograph, and the impossibility of a meaningful code of conduct without enforcing cultural imperialism of some kind, are [[:en:User_talk:Iridescent#Code_of_Conduct|on my en-wiki talk page]]. [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] ([[User talk:Iridescent|talk]]) 13:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Hi all, thank you for the inputs about the image. Please do note that the picture in question here is not the final representation of UCoC. And as I said earlier, we can look at more images for improvement. For that do share your suggestions about other pictures that in your view, better represent the values of the movement and are least controversial. I am looking forward to formulating something that’s widely accepted. --[[User:NNair (WMF)|NNair (WMF)]] ([[User talk:NNair (WMF)|talk]]) 07:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[User:NNair (WMF)|NNair]], are you [[Special:CentralAuth/Chickenwings10|Chickenwings10]]? [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 10:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* I would suggest [[:File:HippocraticOath.jpg|this 12th century manuscript of the Hippocratic Oath]]. It is literally an ethical code, and not a constitution. While a slew of post-enlightenment constitutions make nods to ethical principles, they are not primarily ethical codes; they are frameworks for governance (of the [[:q:John Godfrey Saxe|law and sausage type]]). [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 12:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::It's in the shape of a cross. There's really no image or set of images that accurately represent world values without offending someone, because there isn't a set of values shared globally that I think would accurately reflect the UCoC. [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 20:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::I mean, it is (or at least has become) the quintessential secular ethical code. That this manuscript is shaped like a cross is historical accident. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 21:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::The cross shape may be an accident, our choosing it would not be, nor could we expect it to be perceived as an accident. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 21:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::We're getting somewhat off-topic, but the cross shape is definitely not an accident but an intentional attempt to express continuity between Ancient Greek culture and Byzantine Orthodox Christianity. If we (a) need a CoC and (b) need an image to illustrate (both of which I—along with as far as I can tell virtually everyone not on the WMF payroll—strongly dispute), than I agree that it's a total no-brainer that religious imagery, national symbols, anything pertaining to political issues, or anything that a reasonable person could possibly interpret as such, are totally unacceptable. It's by design, not accident, that the logo of every WMF project is utterly bland.[[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] ([[User talk:Iridescent|talk]]) 23:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::There = taking the way en.wn regards AGF and the WMF's nature as part of a broader notion about how society should operate. With "right-wing politics, or any other political ideologies, for that matter" my intent was to clarify ''Wikinews''ies didn't intend, in adopting Never assume, to promote any broader ideas for society (partly for your information and partly for anyone else who might then take a negative view toward ''Wikinews''; the project has enough opponents already). I apologize for the lot of extrapolation from your comment in interpreting parts of it as repeating right-wing talking points, possibly implying you were just POV-pushing. I guess when one sees a lot of people who ''are'' just POV-pushing and happen to be saying similar things, one thinks the conclusions are obvious. I didn't intend to halt this discussion, though. I would agree the vagueness was likely written into 2.1.3 to allow for selectivity in enforcement. Somewhat related: [[m:User:Tom Morris/WMFers Say The Darndest Things]]. [[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] ([[User talk:Heavy Water|talk]]) 05:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:: If you want to allude to the Hippocratic Oath, there are other images available, such as [[:File:Papyrus text; fragment of Hippocratic oath. Wellcome L0034090.jpg|this one]]. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 23:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::But again, we're back to subconscious cultural bias. The entire concept of medical oaths, let alone the Hippocratic Oath in particular, is specific to particular cultures; in much of Africa, for instance, the entire concept is unknown, and even in the West there are relatively few jurisdictions where any form of oath is mandatory rather than voluntary. <small>([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055655/ Quick RS].)</small> Finding common cultural reference points which have the same meaning to all readers on a global project really is harder than it looks.[[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] ([[User talk:Iridescent|talk]]) 23:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::I mean, as far as I am aware, the Hippocratic Oath has been endorsed and updated by the World Health Organization. But regardless, all this is probably just a distraction, and having any image at all is probably not remotely worth this level of debate. Something something [[:en:BIKE]]. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 13:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::<small>Getting severely off the point, but I think you're misremembering. The WHO is a UN project and would never try to enforce a US-specific concept like medical oaths, as it would provoke a global scandal. The (unrelated) World Medical Association, an international trade body for medical professionals, regularly suggests proposed codes of ethics (I assume the [[:en:Declaration of Geneva|Declaration of Geneva]] is what you're thinking of), but none of them have any particularly wide acceptance. Even in the US, only about 75% of doctors take any kind of oath; if you tried to suggest to medical students at (e.g.) Cambridge University that they should be forced to swear an oath, they'd laugh in your face and politely escort you from the medical school.[[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] ([[User talk:Iridescent|talk]]) 15:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::::::Admittedly completely off topic banter at this point, but ... uhh ... [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11640079] ... And how is a two thousand year old Greek oath a "US-specific concept"? And yes, oaths in general are an archaic concept that are rarely used, but I'm pretty sure we [[:en:Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)|got that bit of tradition you you guys]] being a former colony an all. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 17:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The difficulties of finding a suitable image may be a distraction, or they may be themselves a symbol of how it's not possible to have a "universal" one-size-fits-all approach to all cultures in the world. [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 07:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The point of questioning the image was manifold: First, it revealed certain biases on the part of the person/group posting it. Second, it illustrated that the same image/representation is perceived very differently between individuals and (likely) cultures. Third, it revealed the irony of trying to apply a uniform interpretation of acceptable behaviour across many different cultures. Finally, it illustrated that, despite the fact that English Wikipedians are constantly berated for behaving badly whenever we dare to step outside of our home project, the entire basis of the proposals and all of the research is based on the supposedly ineffective and unhelpful policies of English Wikipedians. This final point is not an exaggeration. Every international meeting I have attended, I have heard at great length how horrible English Wikipedia is or how nasty English Wikipedians are. And yet, the relevant research is comparing *every other project* to English Wikipedia, and finding *those projects* deficient. I'd say there's some bias here, yes. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 01:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Thank you for saying so, I was worried that you might have decided to terminate the conversation right there. It would have been a bad example, so I'm glad that's not the case. Not that there are many young, impressionable children reading policy discussions on wikimedia's talk pages, but I've had conversations that ended in a similar manner on sites like reddit. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) |
|||
== Universal - total universal == |
|||
::::::: Not that you asked, but you may or may not be interested in an essay I'm writing on the subject of political media in the United States: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Socialism/America%27s_political_idiom It's a work in progress and presently quite a mess but the point is pretty clear. I inserted a couple of comments that I made here too. The left/right dichotomy as it exists in the media (and therefore also to some extent in the public's mind) is essentially just hokum. One long-running TV drama. Pomp and pantomime. I'd go on but I'd just be repeating what I've already written in the essay, and I don't want to get off topic. |
|||
Wenn ich das Wort universal richtig verstehe, dann heißt es sowas wie "allgemein" oder "weltweit". ... Wenn das ernst gemeint ist, dann bin ich ja froh, dass es auch in der universal sprache geschrieben wurde und so von jedem auf dieser Welt verstanden wird. Da braucht man es dann auch nicht übersetzen, versteht ja jeder ... Und da Sarkasmus nicht von jedem verstanden wird nochmal deutlich: Es ist arrogant/überheblich/eine Frechheit für eine angeblich "globales" Bewegung eine verbindliches regelwerk einführen zu wollen und das nur in einer einzigen Sprache anzubieten. ... AGF? Das wäre dann wohl: sorry, aber WMF ist einfach zu dumm oder das "Wiki" im Namen heißt nicht, dass das beauftragen von Übersetzern nicht viele Jahr dauern kann ...[[User:Sicherlich|<span style="color:#348853">Sicherlich</span>]] <sup> [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] </sup> 13:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Verstehe ich das richtig, dass Du durchaus für einen solchen globalen Code of Conduct wärest, sofern er in allen Projektsprachen vorhanden wäre?--[[User:Schreibvieh|Schreibvieh]] ([[User talk:Schreibvieh|talk]]) 15:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Vielmehr ist es so: Wenn etwas, was von "oben" in "wrong language" ankommt, so wird das nicht ernst genommen bzw. fürs Erste mal abgelehnt. Man möchte ja erst mal verstehen, worum es eigentlich überhaupt geht. Geht ja in Unternehmen auch so. Wenn der CEO im DACH-Raum in einem DACH-Unternehmen was in Englisch brabbelt bzw. schreibt, so nehmen die Angestellten das Gebrabbel nicht ernst. Und am Schluss wird es so sein: Der CEO jammert über mangelnde Engagement seiner Untergebenen, die folgen ja seinen Anweisungen nicht. Und tut das in Klartext in Deutsch seinen Angestellten kund. Und die Angestellten so: Hä? Das hören wir jetzt zum ersten Mal. Und rebellieren erst recht. Ist menschlich. Und genau das gilt es zu berücksichtigen. |
|||
::D.h. das gleich direkt "in Klartext in Deutsch" weitergeben. Also nicht voller Geschwurbel, wie beim Kurier-Artikel. Also so: "Wir wollen kein Autorenschwund mehr. Also neue Regeln. Dies sollen für alle Wikipedias gelten. Beispielsweise: 'Mobbingverbot' oder 'kein Missbrauch der Wikipedia'. Du kannst bei den Regeln mitdiskutieren." (das fasst den Kuriertext einigermassen zusammen). --[[User:Filzstift|Filzstift]] ([[User talk:Filzstift|talk]]) 15:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::@Schreibvieh: nein, ich habe keine Meinung dazu. Ich bin aber der Meinung, dass ''wenn'' man etwas global als verbindlich vorschreiben will, dass es auch in den Sprachen vorliegen muss. Und ''wenn'' es eine Diskussion dazu geben soll, dass muss ''mindestens'' in den wichtigsten Sprachen vorliegen. Hier liegt es, im typischen WMF-Stil, nur in englisch vor. ...[[User:Sicherlich|<span style="color:#348853">Sicherlich</span>]] <sup> [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] </sup> 16:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Da hast Du völlig recht.--[[User:Schreibvieh|Schreibvieh]] ([[User talk:Schreibvieh|talk]]) 12:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
+1 '''Strongly agree.''' This complete proposal and consultation process should be made available in at least the most common "world languages". The potential impact of global Wikimedia Codes of Conduct is huge; in case of violations of these codes we will be right back to discussing office actions and user bans. I ask the Foundation to provide access to this discussion to all or most communities by making translations available. --[[User:Martina Nolte|Martina Nolte]] ([[User talk:Martina Nolte|talk]]) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Suffice to say, that (for example) there's significant possibility Clinton was/is a serial rapist (see Hitchens 1999) and Kissinger a mass murderer (Hitchens 2001) and both go about unmolested while we are here blathering ritual "disavowals" of ideological motive for fear of reprisal is a perfect example of the demented, pavlovian behavior that we seem to feel is expected of us and that we have come to expect from others. It seems trite to complain about "political correctness", but it really is a cancer. Suppose one didn't want to humor gender pronouns or the concept of gender being different from sex. Suppose they club baby seals on the weekends. In moral terms they'd still be well ahead of the people we're expected to endorse for the sake of "political correctness". Anyone who has any genuine ideological perspective at all probably is, because they are willing to stand on principle, however misguided it may or may not be. I won't let it be implied that ideology (that is, to have an ideal) is unacceptable or anti-social. UCoC part 2 and so much other policy in that vein are, in spirit, just fine. It's the way they're worded and enforced that promotes an awful culture, but of course to isolate this problem one must insinuate bad faith, one must be negative, one must be critical. I'll be surprised if our conversation has any immediate bearing on UCoC or other policy, but it's still a worthwhile conversation to have, if for no reason other than to hash it out for readers and for our own skills in critical discourse. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) |
|||
:Bitte denkt daran, dass es sich hier um die Ankündigung eine Projektes handelt, das noch in einer frühen Planungsphase ist. Aktuell kontaktieren wir Communities rund um die Welt in ihren jeweiligen Sprachen, um sie überhaupt darauf aufmerksam zu machen. Wir sind darauf vorbereitet, Kommentare und Fragen in den Sprachen anzunehmen, in denen die Menschen sich wohl fühlen hier zu kommunizieren. Als nächsten Schritt haben wir geplant, gezielt etwa 14 Sprach-Communities zu kontaktieren (Communities, die noch kein ausführliches Regelwerk haben, aber eine relevante Anzahl von aktiven Freiwilligen) und mit ihnen durch per Kurzzeitvertrag angestellte muttersprachliche Facilitators eine vorab Befragung zum Thema durchzuführen. In der Folge wird es eine allgemeine Befragung für alle Wikis geben. Wir haben (auch finanziell abgesichert) im Plan, dass es dabei professionelle Übersetzungen geben wird, insbesondere natürlich für das endgültige Ergebnis. Aber all Einzelschritte in alle Sprachen zu übersetzen übersteigt unsere Möglichkeiten. Jede Hilfe vorhandene Inhalte als Freiwillige zu übersetzen ist deshalb hoch willkommen! |
|||
::::::: Not touching that one, eh? I can understand, with your project being up in the air. But then, I'm a bit confused myself. What's the point of news if you have to walk on eggshells and avoid uncomfortable or inconvenient topics? Hitchens was no crackpot. He was the archetypal far-left pundit. Anyway, my suggestion is to do away with part two of the UCoC entirely, which I feel is strongly supported by this discussion. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) |
|||
:''English version (rough translation)'': Please remember that what you find here is an announcement of a project in a pre planning stage. At the moment we are contacting communities around the world in their languages to make them aware of this. We are ready to take comments and questions in the languages people feel comfortable in communicating. As a next step we will do an outreach to around 14 language communities we have identified as target communities (communities who do not have an extensive set of rules, but have a certain number of active contributors) and do a pre-consultation with them through hired facilitators in their languages. After that there will be a general consultation for all the wikis. We have planned (and budgeted for) some professional translations on the way and certainly for the translation of the final result, but do not have the resources to do translations in all languages for all steps. Helping out by translating content you are able to translate as a volunteer is highly appreciated! --[[User:CSteigenberger (WMF)|CSteigenberger (WMF)]] ([[User talk:CSteigenberger (WMF)|talk]]) 10:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Klar; in der frühen Planungsphase: und in der späten wird dann der finale Entwurf präsentiert wo man ggf. noch die Kommasetzung beeinflussen kann ... <br/> aber gut. Ich gehe von einer "hidden agenda" aus bzw. so hidden ist die gar nicht: WMF will seine Machtposition ggü. den Communitys auf eine Regel stellen. Damit dann Superprotect oder Bans wie gegen Fran frei Hand direkt von WMF aus gemacht werden können. Die Behauptung es wäre da es eine Regelungslücke gäbe wodurch es ''"zahlreiche Vorfälle"'' gab die Mobbing ermöglichten ist mit extrem viel AGF wohl Wunschdenken, wahrscheinlicher ist es schlicht eine Lüge: ich habe [https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier&diff=194815077&oldid=194814761 mehrfach], [https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier&diff=prev&oldid=194791509 inklusive ping] nachgefragt und einen Belege erbeten. Ich bekam keine Antwort also gehe ich davon aus, dass es schlicht nichts gibt. Wenn es aber keine Fakten bzgl. des Bedarfs gibt ist der Rest auch nur Brot und Spiele fürs Volk. ...[[User:Sicherlich|<span style="color:#348853">Sicherlich</span>]] <sup> [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] </sup> 14:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC) <small> schade, dass es kein "citation needed" auf de gibt. würde ich direkt im Kurier dransetzen </small> |
|||
:::Mutmaßung: WMF bezieht sich vielleicht auf die Ergebnisse der Befragung zu Harassment (vor gefühlt zwei Jahren oder so)? Ich zum Beispiel habe damals in der Umfrage auch von Belästigungen, Beleidigungen und Bedrohungen berichtet. Allerdings auch, dass ich trotz Gewaltandrohungen auch von der Foundation nicht geschützt worden war. Die Foundation hatte es vorgezogen, auf mein Hilfegesuch GAR NICHT zu antworten. Seitdem habe ich den Eindruck, dass Office Actions, Superprotect und User-Bans einer politischen Agenda unterliegen, die mit unseren Projektzielen und allgemeinen Anstandsregeln nicht unbedingt irgendetwas gemeinsam haben. --[[User:Martina Nolte|Martina Nolte]] ([[User talk:Martina Nolte|talk]]) 19:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Bisher ist halt Schweigen im Walde, trotz mehrfacher, ausdrücklicher Nachfrage (mit eigener Zwischenüberschrift und ping; mehr geht on-wiki wohl kaum). |
|||
::::Da kann man nur mutmaßen und das führt, wie man im [[https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier&oldid=194823099#Lasst_uns_reden_-_wie_könnte_ein_Universal_Code_of_Conduct_aussehen? Kurier] sehen kann, nicht nur bei mir zu der Vermutung, dass WMF hier Superprotect und "Frambans" legitimieren will. Denn genau das könnte man dann ja mit einem, zwangsläufig recht allgemein gefassten Code leicht begründen und zwar sowohl um aktiv zu werden als auch um nicht aktiv zu werden. Das bei WMF-Aktionen irgendwelche persönlichen Befindlichkeiten eine Rolle spielen scheint ja im Framban nicht abwegig (um es mal diplomatisch zu formulieren). |
|||
::::Wenn ich das richtig verstanden habe (man möge mich korrigieren), sind ja auch personell Superprotect, Framban und dieser Code hier ganz eng miteinander verwoben --> Nachtigall, ick hör dir trapsen |
|||
::::Auch lehnt WMF es wohl ab dem unter [[#First a ToU for the WMF]] verlinkten zuzustimmen. Die Reaktion geht über ein ''It's good that you share your thoughts'' nicht hinaus und diese Formulierung ist wohl die US-Variante und ''"jaja"''. Womit Superprotect/Frambans weiter wundbar auf dem Tisch liegen. |
|||
::::... zu der Umfrage (die ich nicht kenne/an die ich mich nicht erinnere) ist dann die Frage; kann man aus den Ergebnissen den Schluss ziehen, dass Regeln ''fehlen'', wie behauptet wird oder vielleicht, dass die Umsetzung mangelhaft ist oder gar, dass die Dinge subtil genug sind um von Regeln kaum wirklich erfasst werden zu können? ... |
|||
::::Bei Androhungen von Gewalt und ähnlichem, sprich juristisch relevantem sehe ich die WMF völlig unabhängig von einem Code in der Verantwortung. Das sie gar nicht reagieren spricht Bände ... |
|||
::::...[[User:Sicherlich|<span style="color:#348853">Sicherlich</span>]] <sup> [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] </sup> 19:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Zur Erbauung: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8dk7ZjOZKI Universal Tellerwäscher] ;)<br /> |
|||
Zum Inhalt: Dier anglozentristische Laden hat sich noch nie tatsächlich für Diversität interessiert, wenn es ums Eingemachte ging. Obwohl es sogar bezahlte ''Community Liason'' Leute gab, die seltsame Sprachen sprachen, haben die nicht etwa als Liason mit den nicht-anglophonen Gemeinschaften so etwas wie das hier übersetzt, was ich für eine Kernaufgabe einer solchen Stelle halten würde, sondern das dann per Massennachricht auf englisch in die ganzen Projekte gespammt. Vor lauter Geld nicht grade gehen können, aber nicht mal die Höflichkeit besitzen, wenigstens die 20-30 häufigsten Sprachen asap zu nehmen. Grüße vom [[User:Sänger|Sänger ♫]]<sup>([[User Talk:Sänger|Reden]])</sup> 19:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: After considering the problem a bit more, I'm convinced even AGF would be relatively benign if not for the following sentence: ''Criticism should be delivered in a sensitive and constructive manner.'' This encourages people to take criticism personally. Honest and straightforward criticism of an author's work must not be taken as criticism of its author or treated as incivility, regardless of the extent to which the work is contradicted. Obviously a critique should not be barbaric, but nor should its value and acceptability as a contribution be subject to additional and ill-defined qualifiers such as "constructive" or worse yet "sensitive". Nor should it be debased by euphemism and other attempts at sparing the ego of the author, who would almost certainly prefer a plain-language critique to being patronized if they themselves are participating in good faith. I can humor gender pronouns and other such things, but it seems to undermine the stated mission of many projects if criticism and critics themselves are dispensed with simply by feigning indignation and treating their contribution as a personal attack rather than another form of collaboration, no less valuable than the next. One need not make any statement about the author so AGF is easy enough to comply with so long as a distinction is made between an author and their work. The editor is entitled to humanity, decency and other such niceties. However in publishing their work, are they not obliged to accept criticism of that work? One can hardly even call that a vestige of accountability, but merely acknowledgement that no contribution should be immune to criticism and that criticism shouldn't be subject to the possibility of arbitrary sanction by needlessly vague policy. I hope but do not expect that someone will offer a counterargument if not seriously consider removing this part of the policy, which is far-reaching in its effect. Wikipedia alone is frequently a first-page result on most search engines for any given query. If one asks the amazon echo a question, it often quotes Wikipedia. It seems there ought to be some degree of accountability at least for policy. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 01:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:" we need to ensure that everyone who would like to share important knowledge on our platforms feels comfortable and welcome to join us", also: "Wir müssen sicherstellen, dass jeder und jede, der oder die wichtiges Wissen auf unseren Plattformen teilen will, sich wohl fühlt und den Eindruck hat, bei uns willlkommen zu sein." How come that I don't feel comfortable and welcome at all on this page? Wie kommts dann, dass ich mich auf dieser Seite nicht wohl und willkommen fühle? Might the language issue play a part in it? Vielleicht spielt das Sprachproblem da eine Rolle? Or else the impression that the decision is already made and the call for actively engaging in the discussion only means that we should help to implement it? Oder vielleicht der Eindruck, dass die Entscheiduhg schon getroffen ist und die Einladung, sich "aktiv in der Diskussion zu engagieren", bloß bedeutet, dass wir helfen sollen, diese Entscheidung umzusetzen?[[User:Mautpreller|Mautpreller]] ([[User talk:Mautpreller|talk]]) 11:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: I can't help feeling a bit dense for not isolating this sentence earlier. I probably would have if it were not set within the other, equally wishy-washy prose of part two, all of which makes a vaguely irritating impression and strikes me as unnecessary. But it's this sentence that singles out and places constraints upon criticism while subtly conflating an author with their work that I feel is the most harmful and which I should probably have picked up on sooner. In any case, I feel the above paragraph is a strong prima facie argument for the removal of at least ''that'' sentence from UCoC, and perhaps also for a guideline to the effect of what I've written above. While I'm not sure it will be acknowledged by those whom it may concern, I'm pretty damned sure it won't be refuted. As always, comments, concerns, suggestions, hate mail and so forth are all welcome. Personally I'm delighted by any sort of feedback. While I don't presume that I myself am worthy of anyone's attention, I find the apparent disinterest in conversation on wikipedia and its sister projects wholly bizarre and unnatural, and much of the conversation that does occur is administrative, so to speak, rather than actual discourse. I don't know how anyone could stand to be so cagey and standoffish all the time, but that's my impression of the typical editor, and this is also true of other social media sites and often in real life as well. Sometimes I feel that most people hardly even act like humans. Strange times. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 03:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Falscher Name == |
|||
: Besides AGF and the vague qualifications on critique, the remainder of UCoC part two mostly just amounts to public relations fluff. The entire section could and probably should be replaced with '''Observe common decency and show respect to other users.''' This is a broad yet clear directive that concisely sums up the whole of part two, or at least the parts that are worthwhile. Incidentally, if privileged users are not behaving in accordance with the UCoC and the issue isn't resolved on that project, what recourse do other users have? I realize that the WMF does not want to hear about each and every dispute that occurs, but it often appears that privileged users are not accountable to these rules in the slightest so long as there's a consensus among themselves. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 23:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{quote|Larger communities can use this universal code of conduct to review and polish their existing policies by seeing the bigger picture around the movement. New communities and communities that have only started to develop their own policies can look at the code of conduct for guidance and take it as a baseline until they have developed their own set of rules to build upon it.}} |
|||
:Hi @[[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]], |
|||
So wie sich das anhört müsste das eigentlich nicht "Universeller Verhaltenskodex" sondern "Beispiel eines Verhaltenskodexes" heißen. "Universell" impliziert, dass er universell gelten würde. [[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 15:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:I have wiki-met you on the [https://en.wikinews.org English Wikinews] site where I have been sporadically contributing since I was indefinitely blocked on enwp in 2017. I wanted to tell you that I never understood why the enwn opposes AGF. BTW this is only one of the several reasons why I do not participate on enwn very often. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 17:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@Heavy Water: I forgot to mention that I have contributed to several discussions about the UCOC at WD and COMMONS IIRC, but until I followed you here I had no idea this is where members of the community can participate openly in discussion. I had assumed that discussions were taking place on META where I am infinitely blocked, so cannot participate [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I guess the discussion is not taking place here, after all. This is all very strange if the wmf-staff really wants to hear our views. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|Ottawahitech}} The general lack of public discourse is striking. It's remarkable not just on this page or on this website but in general. I'm somewhat at a loss to explain this as well, though political and intellectual quietism seems favorable to the status quo and I suspect it's at least in part an intentional effect of broad social engineering. People don't really talk about public matters in general. The pomp and undignified exposition that is western political media is probably designed to be somewhat repellent and perhaps as a result it has become fashionable simply not to have an opinion on such matters, i.e., to be "neutral". What you've written essentially comprises a reductio ad absurdum argument. That is to say, they do not care for our input. This doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't offer it. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 08:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::@[[User:AP295|AP295]]: I am not sure that the wmf-staff does not want to hear us. |
|||
:::::I have seen several UCOC notices [[Wikibooks:Wikibooks:Reading room/General|published on the English wikibooks]] and have responded to a couple, but last I looked the [[User:RamzyM (WMF)|staff member]] who posted them had not responded yet. |
|||
:::::There could be other reasons for the lack of discussion here, I think? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 18:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Grammar == |
||
Section 2.1, bullet point 3, sub-bullet point 3: "using" should be changed to "may use" for consistency with the other three sub-bullet points. As currently written, this sub-bullet point is just a noun phrase while the other three are full sentences. [[User:Einsof|Einsof]] ([[User talk:Einsof|talk]]) 14:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The Wikimedia movement (does such a movement really exist? in my opinion: no) does ''not'' need a binding set of ethical guidelines. On the contrary, an attempt to enforce such a "binding set" will destroy the very essence of the community projects. It is extreme hubris to think that any organization could actually "ensure" (!!) that everyone of good will will feel "comfortable" (!!). I expect the kind of fake participation that is usual in WMF ideas (as in the Strategy Process): WE have decided to implement a universal code of conduct. YOU are permitted to take part in a constructive discussion about the details. However, my constructive argument is simply: forget it. In the best case, this is a useless endeavour. In the worst case, it is a Big Brother idea. Nothing useful can come out of this but much dangerous and hazardous.--[[User:Mautpreller|Mautpreller]] ([[User talk:Mautpreller|talk]]) 19:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:+1 We're all adults here and the self-government of my wikicommunity is working. The last thing my community needs is WMF making rules for us, because we can better make them ourselves. This UCoC-idea is totally superflous. [[User:Nasiruddin|Nasiruddin]] ([[User talk:Nasiruddin|talk]]) 08:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:bump |
|||
I am really baffled by one section of the "Community Insights" Report, i.e. the devastating answers to the questions "I am consulted sufficiently by the Wikimedia Foundation" and "I feel that my voice is heard in Wikimedia Foundation decisions". T&S seems to completely ignore this (as was the case in the whole Strategy Process). Their therapy seems to be "more of the same".[[User:Mautpreller|Mautpreller]] ([[User talk:Mautpreller|talk]]) 10:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:(People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns) [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 17:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== This includes imposing schemes on content intended to marginalize or ostracize == |
|||
One more remark: [[:de:Wikipedia:Kritik-Knigge|This text]] is in all essential features written by me. However, it is not a code of conduct (although it was integrated in the T&S assessment of such codes). It aims to convince people of a way how to criticize articles in a review. It does not prescribe rules, ethical values or confessions and is definitely not binding. It is a free offer, not a set of rules. The very idea would be destroyed if one tried to transform it into a "code". If you really want to enable more and better participation as you say again and again, you should think about such offers. It is definitely counterproductive to look for ways how one can ''deny'' access to users, which seems to be the only idea of the Universal Code of Conduct project. This can only cause harm and should be quickly abandoned.[[User:Mautpreller|Mautpreller]] ([[User talk:Mautpreller|talk]]) 12:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Not the first person to ask, and not the first time I'm asking. What does the last UCoC sentence mean? Is this "imposing schemes" + on + "content intended to marginalize", or is it "imposing schemes on content" (which are) "intendend to marginalize". Marginalize or ostracize whom? Any real-world examples of such behavior? Translators had a hard time understanding this sentence. [[User:PEarley (WMF)|PEarley (WMF)]]? |
|||
== Allowing diversity == |
|||
<small>''"I could have done it in a much more complicated way," said the Red Queen, immensely proud.''</small> [[User:Ponor|Ponor]] ([[User talk:Ponor|talk]]) 17:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Wikimedia truly is a global player. Our communities span around the globe. Diversity does not only exist within these communities but also between communities. Communication styles vary big times between countries and continents. At Commons, one of our global projects, it is helpful and expected that administrators consider a user's nationality when assessing and judging their communication. For example, German and Dutch folks (no offense, I am German with some Dutch roots myself), are known for a very blunt and candid communication style which can be perceived as rude or even as aggressive and offensive by - let's say - an American or Australian reader. Wikimedia Commons seems to have found strategies to work with the diversity of their users. Any global Wikimedia code of conduct, if really necessary at all, should allow wiggle room for such international and intercultural diversity. Please do not try to apply a cookie cutter globally. --[[User:Martina Nolte|Martina Nolte]] ([[User talk:Martina Nolte|talk]]) 19:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:In context, the entire sentence seems redundant. Removing it would make the code less complicated still. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 04:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==enforcement?== |
|||
A "Code of Conduct" - in addition to Terms of Services and Wikiquette guidelines - will only be as valuable as enforcement processes, and enforcing authorities come with it. Nothing has been said in the introduction about this aspect. Are we talking about office actions and global/partial user bans again, now based on violations of a global code of conduct? Recently, the consultation on user bans (after "Framgate") showed a very clear result: Communities highly appreciate self-management, including "local" conflict resolution and handling of disruptive community members. Wikimedia stated something like "we heard you, loud and clear". But based on the introductionary statements on codes of conduct, I am afraid that Wikimedia is simply trying to give a new name to an old (already dismissed) approach. Please don't. --[[User:Martina Nolte|Martina Nolte]] ([[User talk:Martina Nolte|talk]]) 19:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:IMO: thats what the Code is about. To give WMF the excuse to use Superprotect or ban people as they wish. ...[[User:Sicherlich|<span style="color:#348853">Sicherlich</span>]] <sup> [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] </sup> 14:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Hello {{ping|Martina Nolte}} and {{ping|Sicherlich}}. The UCoC project is not an effort to undermine community enforcement of policy, or to replace it with Foundation staff. It aims to support community practices by consolidating basic values around behaviour across the whole movement, especially beneficial to smaller language projects that have not written specific conduct policies yet. Local, volunteer enforcement is the model it is working with. [[User:PEarley (WMF)|Patrick Earley (WMF)]] ([[User talk:PEarley (WMF)|talk]]) 19:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Die Botschaft hör' ich wohl, allein mir fehlt der Glaube. (''I hear the message well but lack faiths constant trust'') ... sorry, but it sounds to me like ''"Niemand hat die Absicht eine Mauer zu errichten"'' (Walter Ulbricht, some weeks bevor the berlin wall was build) ...[[User:Sicherlich|<span style="color:#348853">Sicherlich</span>]] <sup> [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] </sup> 20:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:PEarley (WMF)]] for your understanding I repeat the reasoning I wrote before (somewhere): I remember two harsh steps against the community by WMF: Superprotect and Framban. It took a lot of effort and kind of "outcry" by the community to get it corrected. In both cases Jan Eissfeldt was involved. Now a Team which is (if I get it right) lead by him is starting a Code of Conduct but that has nothing to do with WMF seeking ways to get a legitimation for using its powers? ... Well, thats hard to believe to me. ...[[User:Sicherlich|<span style="color:#348853">Sicherlich</span>]] <sup> [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] </sup> 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Trust is always a voluntary thing. You can't demand it, it is there or not there. I, for my part, don't trust Trust & Safety. Not least because they have not proved to be trustworthy in the past. You won't change this if you don't do anything to earn trust. This idea is not suitable to do this.[[User:Mautpreller|Mautpreller]] ([[User talk:Mautpreller|talk]]) 11:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:PEarley (WMF)]]: Could you please explain in more detail how the implementation of a global Code of Conduct would look like in a local project? Let's say: German Wikipedia has their set of rules comparable to [[:w:Wikipedia:Wikiquette]] and [[:w:Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] and [[:w:Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]. In the left bottom navigation you see that a LOT of Wikipedias have local guidelines and rules addressing user conduct. The rules are not exactly the same but the general ideas and goals seem to be alike. Local administrators apply those rules and guidelines in cases of misconduct including insulting, threatening, and otherwise disruptive behavior. Local administrators know their community's "local" communication style (I.e. they can well distinguish between candid, rude, and offensive communication); they also usually know the "historical" background of interpersonal conflicts; and they have a pretty good idea if a disruptive user is using offensive language possibly "by accident" in a single incident, or if they are willingly and repeatedly offending others. Accordingly administrators would implement administrative sanctions (i.e. topic bans, interaction bans with specific users, temporary edit bans, permanent/indefinite edit bans). Blocking policies would regulate appeals against sanctions. Additionally, users can call for mediation, and arbitration; or they can initiate a community vote on a users ban. What I am trying to say: This is typically a pretty complex system with which communities address and manage misconduct and interpersonal conflicts. Now, how would a global "Code of Conduct" play into this? What exactly would be the benefit of a global code of conduct in addition to these local rules and processes? According to your user page you are the Manager, Policy - Trust & Safety. As you know: Policy is binding; it comes with enforcement and sanctions in case of violations. Would the Code of Conduct be a part of the Terms of Use; and thus supersede local policies and processes? Would Foundation staff take Office Actions in cases where a local community is not capable (in the view of Trust&Safety) to handle disruptive users appropriately and effectively? If not why would there be a need for a global policy? You talked about small communities. I agree that there might be a support need. But wouldn't it be much more effective to talk to those communities directly and offer them assistance with developing conduct policies and/or with enforcing those rules? Last but not least question: Is the Foundation willing to include an initial sentence to the Code of Conduct that the policy only applies to those communities that do not have rules and guidelines on user conduct, and/or are lacking enforcement processes, and/or enforcing manpower? --[[User:Martina Nolte|Martina Nolte]] ([[User talk:Martina Nolte|talk]]) 04:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
I imagine translators have a hard time with the UCoC for the same reason they'd probably not be able to translate "smoke free" into "smoking is prohibited" unless they already understood the idiom. Much of the UCoC seems to be constructed in the vacuous dialect of contemporary [[w:Public relations|PR]], rather than by aiming for a clear and easily-interpreted set of rules. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 04:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== First a ToU for the WMF == |
|||
== Proposed revisions - values both civility and scholarly inquiry == |
|||
[[Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Terms_of_Use_for_the_WMF|Here]] was a wonderful suggestion for a ToU, that the WMF should give itself in regard of their relationship to the communities. Unless they stop trying to rule from above and start listening to the communities and behave as the facilitator they are, not the leader, nbody will have any trust in them any longer. The WMF ist one of the problems in terms of conduct, they should Change quickly. Grüße vom [[User:Sänger|Sänger ♫]]<sup>([[User Talk:Sänger|Reden]])</sup> 15:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Excerpted from [[:meta:User:Jaredscribe/UCoC]], where I will be proposing more revisions for the annual review. |
|||
== An [[:en:oxymoron|oxymoron]]: binding guidelines == |
|||
==={{slink|Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#2_–_Expected_behaviour}}=== |
|||
What's the realtionship between existing local rules and UCoC? |
|||
<blockquote>"In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour <strike>will be</strike> <strong>should be</strong> founded in civility, <strong>scholarly inquiry, logical discourse</strong>, collegiality, respect <strong>for verifiable truth and for eachother</strong>. <strike>solidarity and good citizenship.</strike>" </blockquote> |
|||
These changes are proposed for the reasons stated by [[w:Aristotle|Aristotle]] in the [[w:Nicomachean Ethics|Nicomachean Ethics]] to justify his abandonment of the Platonic [[w:theory of forms]]: '''While both are dear, piety requires us to honor truth above our friends.''' --[[s:Nicomachean_Ethics_(Ross)/Book_One#Part_6|Book I chapter 6, 1096a.16]]. But the phrase as currently formulated in the official UCoC neglects to mention scholarly discourse, inquiry, or logic as valuable behaviors. It offers instead 5 synonyms for civility, which taken together may be used to imply and enforce "compliance" with a group consensus, which would be a recipe for [[w:groupthink]]. [[User:Jaredscribe|Jaredscribe]] ([[User talk:Jaredscribe|talk]]) 01:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*''a '''binding''' set of ethical '''guidelines''''' |
|||
:{{ping | Jaredscribe}} While I agree with the spirit of this, I think that all of these things are predicated upon critique. "Civility" is often used somewhat euphemistically to mean agreeableness, itself favorable to assent. If anything, the UCoC needs a statement that protects critique and critical contributions. It also has far too many redundancies. Generally it contains too much redundant or meaningless PR language. Christopher Hitchens put the point rather well when he wrote "'' In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" Of course he wasn't talking about Wikimedia, but the point is no less relevant here. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 08:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*''the need for a global set of conduct '''rules''''' |
|||
::Yes - Civil, logical, scholarly critique should be protected, even when it is in dissent to whatever opinion is prevailing. Have you considered writing an [[w:WP:Essay]] with you opinions? Do you have a user page somewhere with a manifesto? A proposed rewrite of the [[w:WP:Civility]] policy? I concur that there is a need for this, and my proposal was a start. You may contribute to my [[m:User:Jaredscribe/UCoC#Commentary%20and%20Analysis]], if you wish. [[User:Jaredscribe|Jaredscribe]] ([[User talk:Jaredscribe|talk]]) 03:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: A manifesto? Do I strike you as a Ted Kaczynski? I hope that's not the impression I give. I would like to see a provision that protects critical contributions and another rule that prohibits dishonesty. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 19:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: Though since you've asked, I do have a relevant essay on wikiversity, https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Policy_and_Standards_for_Critical_Discourse. It's a critique on the design and policy of popular user-driven websites. I may end up moving it if wikiversity ever improves the documentation on content organization and namespaces and I figure out exactly how to organize my essays. However, I am blocked on wikipedia and the essay is only partly about Wikipedia anyway. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 00:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::They are not predicated upon critique, but upon conduct and discussion. Not all discussion must or should be critical, although critique is one aspect of discussion that should be protected when it is done competently and in good-faith. Much critique on wikipedia is not done that way, in my experience, which is the motivation for guidelines like this. |
|||
::I propose that all dialectic - including talk pages, edit summaries, user talk pages, in person meetups, multiple live drafts (as in [[w:WP:Bold-refine]] - should be founded in '''"scholarly inquiry"''' and '''"analytical discourse"''' ('logical discourse'), which includes critique but starts before goes far beyond it. |
|||
::[[User:Jaredscribe|Jaredscribe]] ([[User talk:Jaredscribe|talk]]) 23:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Again, I agree with the spirit and think such a change would be an improvement, but that's not saying much. Deleting the sentence entirely would be better yet. Phrases like ''founded in scholarly inquiry'' still amount to wooden language. That is, non-specific and somewhat meaningless. A statement such as I suggest would protect dissenting contributions and critique without such ambiguity. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 12:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: I should say though that I'd be quite surprised if they obliged my request in the near term. It's not as though the people who make these decisions are oblivious to these points. On the contrary. Hitchens also had something to say about this, (or rather Chomsky did, but I don't have Chomsky's original quote) "''Noam Chomsky, a most distinguished intellectual and moral dissident, once wrote that the old motto about “speaking truth to power” is overrated. Power, as he points out, quite probably knows the truth already, and is mainly interested in suppressing or limiting or distorting it. We would therefore do better to try to instruct the powerless. ''" It's irritating how often I have to cite Hitchens. It makes me look like a fanatic (which I'm not), but I suppose I should be glad to have at least one 'authority' to cite. Anyway, the points should still be made, and one should not presume they're lost upon the decision makers. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 08:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*''These '''guidelines''''' |
|||
*''The universal code of conduct will apply to all of us - staff and volunteers alike, all around the globe'' |
|||
== U4C Charter == |
|||
*''it aims to provide a basic level of norms that everyone working on the projects will be '''asked to follow''' and build upon.'' |
|||
*''Larger communities '''can use''' this universal code of conduct to review and polish their existing policies by seeing the bigger picture around the movement. New communities and communities that have only started to develop their own policies '''can''' look at the code of conduct for '''guidance''' and take it as a baseline until they have developed their own set of rules to build upon it.'' |
|||
Will the U4C Charter eventually be moved to this wiki? Just wondering. [[User:Adrianmn1110|Adrianmn1110]] ([[User talk:Adrianmn1110|talk]]) 11:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*''A similar question goes for the '''enforcement of the guidelines''' once they are drafted. The Wikimedia movement is run by the '''communities''', therefore '''they remain the prime authority to roll out the guidelines'''. As per the current plan, the responsibility of enforcement will be handled by the communities and administrators of various wiki projects. However, thoughts and suggestions on '''alternative means of enforcement''' are welcome.'' |
|||
:While things remain under development, we are keeping much of that on Meta-Wiki. However, if @[[User:PEarley (WMF)|PEarley (WMF)]] is open to it (ultimately - it is up to the Trust & Safety team) - that is something we can certainly do at some point. --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 20:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Summury: They're binding guidelines you can follow or not, but you're forced to do so because you have the authority not to do it. --[[User:Der-Wir-Ing|Der-Wir-Ing]] ("DWI") [[User talk:Der-Wir-Ing|talk]] 23:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry, meant to ping @[[User:JEissfeldt (WMF)|JEissfeldt (WMF)]]. Force of habit - apologies. --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 17:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:There is a creative tension between the aim for a global code and the aim for an inclusive global organisation that is open to everyone regardless of their cultural background. At this stage, where we don't have any specific rules being proposed, it is possible to come up with the sort of self contradictory phrasing that English speaking marketing people are likely to understand as keeping options open, but which is anything from disconcerting to offputting and illogical to people who are trying to translate this into other languages, raising alarm bells for people who have seen previous US based attempts to impose US standards on other cultures, and probably discriminatory against our friends on the Autism spectrum. My hope is that the Foundation has people who can shift this dialogue to something like "We can hopefully all agree that vandalism is wrong, though sometimes you need to understand a language and culture to spot subtle vandalism. In some languages CONVERSING IN ALL CAPS is considered to be shouting and deprecated. But not all languages have upper and lower cases. For communities that have a single case script such as Georgian, SHOUTING is a truly alien concept. So we can probably agree that ''don't vandalise Wikipedia'' should be a universal rule, ''but don't write in all caps'' might go in the English language code and other languages where people consider it relevant." |
|||
:My fear is that the Foundation will make the sort of mistakes US based "global" organisations are known for. Like many I have negative experiences both of the WMF and of other US based organisations. Over a decade ago in "real life" I had some US colleagues who were rolling out a US English rude word checker to all Emails going in and out of a global organisation. They thought I was being difficult when I pointed out that my German colleagues were having phone calls from clients whose German language emails were being rejected for including German words and names that were profanities in American English. I hope the WMF won't be quite so crass; But given past insensitivities and mistakes by the WMF, it would be safe to assume that this project will be high risk for the WMF as it plays to its weaknesses rather than its strengths. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 10:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Admins/sysops issuing a block should be required to cite the offending diff(s) and the specific (official) rule/policy violated in the block log message == |
|||
== Which communities have been involved in this discussion? == |
|||
(Edit: I made an RfC on metawiki for this proposal after making some changes and refinements to it, and anyone is welcome to comment there if it's still open: [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/The_block_log_lacks_useful_information_-_basic_requirements_for_sysop/admin_accountability] [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 23:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)) |
|||
An invitation and a link to this pre-consultation page had been posted at the [[:de:Wikipedia:Kurier#Lasst_uns_reden_–_Wie_könnte_ein_Universal_Code_of_Conduct_aussehen?|community newspaper page at German Wikipedia]]. Did WMF invite any other community to contribute to this discussion? Where do other communities provide their input and feedback? --[[User:Martina Nolte|Martina Nolte]] ([[User talk:Martina Nolte|talk]]) 04:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
It's the minimum amount of record-keeping and organization required for public accountability. Otherwise it can be quite hard for an observer to determine why a user was blocked and whether or not the user actually broke any rules, let alone to collect data in aggregate for research, journalism, or other study. It would only take a moment for the blocking admin to record this information. They wouldn't have to provide every single offending diff, only enough to show that the action is justified. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 07:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I heartily endorse this observation. I have been blocked from the English Wikipedia as a result of mob action that was orchestrated by two individuals and which masqueraded as “community consensus”. When first appealed a third individual wrote an assessment of my actions which were not only totally unsubstantiated, but were verging on the libellous. When I have tried to get myself reinstated I am told “Admit your faults”. When I ask “What were my faults”, all that I get is a deafening silence. [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 21:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::"''I have been blocked from the English Wikipedia as a result of mob action that was orchestrated by two individuals and which masqueraded as “community consensus”''" How would I know? Maybe it's obvious, maybe it's not obvious. Maybe you deserved it. Maybe you didn't. I'm not going to investigate though. |
|||
::Loaded questions like "what were you blocked for?" would not be necessary if there were a basic record. Sometimes they even do cite the information in the block log. Most of the time they don't though. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 07:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::But assuming you were blocked dishonestly, thanks for your support. I should have realized sooner that poor record-keeping is what allows unaccountable blocking and abuse. Otherwise it would be obvious to anyone who simply checked the log. Even in the cases where one can quickly figure it out, it's impossible to automatically associate blocks with diffs for research purposes. In many cases it involves finding a handful of archived pages or past versions without any links. It is impractical. I really doubt the volume of banned editors would pose a problem, as it would only take a moment to add this info. It is not laborious. I anticipate one objection might be the (trivial) inconvenience of entering the information, but in that case the rule could apply only for editors with accounts and exclude IP editors, who are usually given short-term blocks for things like vandalism. There's no excuse whatsoever not to do require this. Of course I'm open to counterarguments, but as I see it the only reason one would object to this is because they ''intend'' to abuse blocks and issue them for reasons other than rule/policy violations. |
|||
::Like I mentioned, in a few days I'll start an RfC on meta. I'm presently on a short-term block on meta, so I'll have to wait a few days but feel free to make one yourself and link/quote this topic. (unless you really did deserve your ban, in which case you may not be the best representative, but I welcome your input in the upcoming RfC at any rate.) Otherwise leave it to me, but if I don't make one for whatever reason (hit by a bus, block extended, etc.) you should do so yourself. This would probably fix the problem of sysop/admin abuse on wikimedia projects so I consider it kind of important. Hopefully more than just us two will show interest. At the very least, it would look suspect to reject this idea, for reasons I've already mentioned. |
|||
::"''Admit your faults''". Users are practically never given the chance to appeal on the basis of policy. Rather, a user blocked unfairly is expected to validate and endorse this abuse to make it appear credible. Actually all blocked users are expected to do this as a matter of course. I doubt those who use their admin/sysop privileges dishonestly or abusively really want to argue on the basis of ''policy'' as opposed to the far more convenient presumption that their actions were appropriate and the user's were not, so the process is applied indiscriminately to make it a de-facto standard. Of course, one only really learns this after they've been blocked. The relevant behavioral guidelines [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Direct_appeal] give one the superficial impression that when users are blocked unfairly, the mistake will be rectified immediately, "''If there is agreement that you may have been blocked unfairly, you may be directly unblocked ''". Yet they quickly go on to qualify this, "''but this is very rare unless there genuinely were no prospective grounds for the block. Usually the blocking admin's judgement is respected if there is any question of doubt''". Notice the doublespeak here. What they've said can be equivalently stated: ''your block won't be considered unfair if it's plausible'', i.e. if it's something they can get away with, you will remain blocked. The lack of a basic record with diffs and policy citations protects this plausibility, as a proper record would make it instantly apparent whether or not it was justified and remove any ambiguity or presumption of guilt, which is the only standard they seem to be held to. It's all vague enough to be believable, and plenty of users who are blocked do deserve it, so unfair blocks are more or less impossible for the user to contest. They should also change that part of the guidelines. There's no honest reason for this additional qualifying sentence. Why wouldn't they just say that ''if your block was unfair, you'll be unblocked''. Does that not suffice? Wouldn't that be the sensible thing to do? Also, look at the euphemistic phrasing, ''blocking admin's judgement is respected if there is any question of doubt''. This is a presumption of guilt and should be removed, or just stated as such so that they cannot maintain this pretense of fairness and concern. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 00:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: One last observation: I almost missed it, "''If there is agreement that you may have been blocked unfairly'', the operative word here being "agreement". So it only takes one user to veto an unblock. Not that it seems there's ever much disagreement among sysops/admins. They typically just all agree with one another, and certainly I've never seen an admin come to a user's defense against other admins. Perhaps this is just a belt-and-braces approach, just in case. As you can see though the entire process is ''designed'' to allow abuse. There is no real policy on wikipedia. They just do whatever is convenient. Having no consistently and fairly enforced policy makes it easily exploitable and it probably serves as a tool of propaganda for various private interests, which are known to resent law and order. You can never say that someone might be acting in that capacity, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which demands credulity from the user and can be equivalently stated as "do not question the motives of others". The whole site is screwed up and stacked against the well-meaning editor, and my suggestion here would be a good start to fixing it. Do I think they'll accept it? Maybe. Probably not. (not really) Yet I have to ask anyway. One must maintain the ''expectation'' of fairness, even if one does not anticipate they will receive it. Anything less is nihilistic. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 00:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: Gotta say though, I might just leave after I make the RfC. There are far too many two-faced, mean-spirited people here. Not only do I suspect many of them have ulterior motives, but they are often spiteful just for the hell of it. It's a shame all the public ever sees is the marketing. One wouldn't have a clue just looking at the rules, front page, or even most talk pages. Just look at the main page here on WMF, which has quite an air of officiality and gives the impression it's a highly-ordered and well-managed site. I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen just awful behavior (some of it I suspect due to ulterior motives, but also largely just spiteful, guttural, crude and blatantly in violation of so-called policy.) One is treated as a nuisance for honest editing. As just a single example, look at my appeal on my wiktionary talk page, which has gone ignored for months. The pretenses of social responsibility and community give wikipedia and other projects a public image that is really quite undeserved. Personally I'll never feel a pang of social obligation ever again looking at the fundraising banners. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 01:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with this idea. [[User:Adrianmn1110|Adrianmn1110]] ([[User talk:Adrianmn1110|talk]]) 09:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: Pretty much every other site works this way. Users are blocked for one or more specific contributions. What's the point of a block log in the first place if it's full of meaningless entries like "''Clearly not here to built an encyclopedia''"? That isn't how a fair community is run. The talk page message they leave rarely contains much info either. The appeal process fits neatly into the pattern of abuse I described above, as even the standard offer is apparently conditioned on your "affirmation" of the blocking admin's original misconduct, i.e. "explaining what one did wrong". Consider also how difficult it would be to apply oversight without a real block log. Doesn't that suggest nobody really ever double checks or re-evaluates these blocks? [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 20:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::As far as I can see, the ideal structure would be for the block log to contain the diff to the posting where the block is imposed and the this posting should in turn contain a diff pointing to the original accusation which in turn should contain diffs that justify the accusation. If any of these diffs are missing, the block should be declared null and void as the to verify a meaningful acknowledgement is missing. [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 21:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm not sure I follow. At any rate, it should positively identify which contribution(s) a user was blocked for and cite specific policy. Hardly a tall order. An alternative to citing diffs would be a simple tool that allows one to highlight text on a permalinked page (the most recent version at the time the block is issued), but there's little reason that diffs wouldn't do for the time being. Either would allow easy positive ID of the 'offending' contribs as well as their context. Anything less is neither transparent nor conducive to public accountability. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Even just requiring a permalink to the relevant page(s) at the time the block is issued and linking the relevant policy would be a great improvement, for practically zero effort. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 16:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I suppose either diffs or permalinks would work. It would be effortless to do this, and crucially, it would enable both accountability for individual actions as well as data collection for research. In the latter case, one could identify biases, censorship and other trends in the aggregate, which would otherwise be difficult to recognize and substantiate. These projects reach millions of people. They present themselves as open to public participation and no doubt many users presume content is subject to public scrutiny. Both editors and the public are owed a degree of transparency. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 18:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:AP295|AP295]]: I am surprised at the interest you managed to arouse in this proposal both here and on META. Thanks for putting in the time and thought. |
|||
:Unfortunately it appears that some participants on META assume that wrongful blocks are always abusive blocks, which they attribute to only a small number of cases. However, In my experience there are many more hastily executed blocks executed in good faith than abusive ones. The blocking admin is simply in a hurry and does not take the time to thoroughly investigate before issuing the block. This is true both on the English Wikipedia (enwp) and also on the smaller projects. Your proposal will force admins to think before they act, but I can see why many would object to it. Many admins and non-admins alike believe that there aren't enough admins as it is. Requiring admins to do even more work is a non-starter, unless it can be balanced with the good it will do. So how can we frame this proposal in terms that emphasize the positives that will come out of it? |
|||
:Since you have already anticipated the excessive-time objection in your META introduction ('''"Taking the extra moment to copy a few links would hardly be a nuisance in most cases, but for the sake of argument let's say a project is so short-handed that they cannot apply this rule for every user. From a cursory look at the wikipedia block log (as an example), it seems that roughly half of all blocks are issued to ip users. IPs do not seem to receive long blocks in the first place and so limiting this policy just to those blocks issued to registered users would be natural. Still too much work? Apply it only for confirmed/autoconfirmed, or in the worst case extendedconfirmed users, who naturally represent a minuscule fraction of the block log (and probably deserve at least that much courtesy for the effort they've put in)"'''): |
|||
:how about limiting this proposal (at least initially) to only long-term blocks (say one-year or longer), and to those who have been contributing for a long time (how long?). I know you have checked the block log at the enwp - I am curious to find out how many long-term contributors are blocked for more than a year every month? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 23:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::"''Your proposal will force admins to think before they act, but I can see why many would object to it.''" I actually don't see why any admin acting in good faith should object to this. "''Unfortunately it appears that some participants on META assume that wrongful blocks are always abusive blocks, which they attribute to only a small number of cases. However, In my experience there are many more hastily executed blocks executed in good faith than abusive ones. The blocking admin is simply in a hurry and does not take the time to thoroughly investigate before issuing the block. [...] how about limiting this proposal (at least initially) to only long-term blocks (say one-year or longer), and to those who have been contributing for a long time (how long?)''" It's up to them. EC users at least should all be included, though frankly it ought to be applied for any registered user and all blocks. Indefinite blocks seem to be handed out quite commonly, without reference to official policy, and apparently without corrective intent. This is at least negligent, if not abusive. Why would they issue an indef instead of a shorter block if they were in doubt? At most, indefs should be used very infrequently and only in exceptional cases. I was tempted to mention this but the RfC needed to be as focused as possible. Bear in mind this requirement should also enable the public (e.g. researchers, watchdogs, journalists, etc.) to conduct research and hopefully recognize when blocks are being used to bias content. "''Many admins and non-admins alike believe that there aren't enough admins as it is. Requiring admins to do even more work is a non-starter, unless it can be balanced with the good it will do.''" They'd be able to attract more high-quality volunteers if the culture weren't so repellent and they didn't throw people out at the drop of a hat. The small amount of extra time it would take could be eliminated almost entirely with a few UI tools. I don't buy the "too much extra work" excuse. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 04:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:AP295|AP295]], |
|||
:::I agree that the way blocks are handled creates a repellent atmosphere, but it has not caused the site to collapse, even though many have been predicting a collapse for many years. New volunteers are still flowing in and the content is slowly improving regardless. |
|||
:::What percentage of the wiki-community thinks that the way volunteers are blocked is a major issue? It took me years to come to this conclusion, how long did it take you? |
|||
:::Re: '''"The small amount of extra time it would take"''' |
|||
:::I don't want to deter you, but I am of the opposite opinion. Nothing on this enormous site can be done with little effort. I do believe though that if you can make headway you will become a legend. |
|||
:::But lets start small: re: '''"eliminated almost entirely with a few UI tools"''' |
|||
:::Who is going to design and build the UIs you foresee? If you expect this to be done by foundation employees, have you ever participated in the annual wishlist on META? This has been going for years and has become a very bureaucratic process where volunteers with bright ideas try to sell the wikimedia foundation on technical tools they are sure will help everyone enormously. I have not been watching this area on META for years now, but I believe out of hundreds of ideas there only ten winners. |
|||
:::Over to you... |
|||
:::Cheers, [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 16:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I never said it would cause the site to collapse or any such thing. If there are new volunteers then they can make some of them admins. At any rate, I believe they could apply this requirement (in one of the forms I described) right now and it would not impose a serious burden. It scales in just the way I've described. Excluding blocks less than one week and IP users (who are usually given short-term blocks and make up about half the list anyway), how many users does the average admin block on any given day? It hardly takes much time to copy a link or a few links, so if you're going to argue that it would require too much labor, you'd have to do so on the basis of volume. In that case, it can be scaled in the manner I've suggested, which you've quoted in bold a couple replies above. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 18:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I wonder if a meta wiki RfC would be a better venue for this discussion. I suppose I'll wait a few days and see if any functionaries reply here first, but this page oddly does not seem to get a lot of traffic. It's quite strange this isn't already required, even just for the sake of convenience so that sysop and admin decisions can be evaluated at a glance by stewards, or whoever it is that's responsible for making sure they don't go batshit (hopefully someone). I suppose it suggests that blocks are rarely if ever subject to oversight. Hardly reassuring. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 07:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:10, 12 July 2024
![]() | This page is for discussions related to the page. Please remember to:
Discussion navigation:
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
AGF
"Assume good faith...All Wikimedians should assume unless evidence otherwise exists that others are here to collaboratively improve the projects, but this should not be used to justify statements with a harmful impact."
So AGF will now be enforced on projects without AGF as a guideline? Presumably, there are projects where AGF is just an essay, where guidelines don't provide any guidance on this, or, like my home project, where there is an explicit prohibition on assumptions of faith, good or bad. Heavy Water (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Heavy Water I have always had concern about AGF and its many, equally off-putting analogs whereby any expression of disapproval, suspicion, critique or normal human emotions like frustration put the editor into a gray area right off the bat. I'm not sure of the correct venue to raise such concerns, but in my experience this approach typically goes nowhere precisely because anyone can ignore reason, then cite AGF and a slew of other rules you're arguably in violation of when you call them a jackass. If you happen to have an incredible amount of restraint, patience and persistence and can't be cited for anything else, open-ended catchalls like WP:NOTHERE (a blatant contradiction of AGF by any reasonable interpretation) usually get the job done. AGF is enforced exactly when it is convenient for them to do so. Otherwise there are plenty of other expedient rules and essays that provide grounds upon which any given user may be summarily ejected from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Perhaps I'll write an essay of my own on the subject. What do you think? AP295 (talk)
- @Heavy Water And since "assume good faith" only enforceable to the extent that we say what we assume, the rule could be equivalently stated as "do not question the motives of others." Without euphemistic phrasing that uses adjectives like "good" and "faith", the rule sounds exactly as Orwellian as it is. How should one make critical statements? If users are obliged to understate criticism and act as though others have no possible ulterior motive then critical discourse is severely debased. The expression of critique, discontent and frustration all go hand-in-hand and they are no less important than the expression of joy or any other "positive" message. When policy demands that users "avoid negativity" they should consider what that really means. What would we have besides a twilight zone of fawning, obsequious consumers and grinning, unchecked psychopathy? AP295 (talk)
- The rest after part two is fairly straightforward and more or less amounts to "don't harass people or wreck the site". Part two strikes me as unusual because it's presented as advice. One can't interpret it as a set of positive obligations because policy statements like "Be ready to challenge and adapt your own understanding, expectations and behaviour as a Wikimedian" are nonspecific and obviously outside any given project's authority to enforce. It seems worthwhile to make the distinction between enforceable policy and statements like "Practice empathy." The needle in the haystack here is AGF, which at first appears to fit in with the rest of the ostensibly well-intended (if banal) advice but when re-worded to properly match the scope of a project's authority to enforce, turns out to be "do not question the motives of others." In compliance with AGF, I assume of course that this is all coincidental. AP295 (talk)
- Indeed. Really, at least at en.wp, AGF is the rule from on high — when it's convenient. The framework of en.wn's never assume initially seems like it would turn users into a hostile bunch always suspicious of each other, but I've observed it actually lowers the temperature of community politics, even where strong interpersonal conflict is present. In fact, the honesty allowed by freedom from AGF and actual enforcement of the de jure etiquette guideline seems to make arguments clearer and allow us to summarily deal with disruptive elements, without politeness and often with what the UCoC defines as "insults". "We expect all Wikimedians to show respect for others" without "exceptions based on standing, skills...in the Wikimedia projects or movement": Even on en.wp, individuals judged not to meet WP:CIR ("skills") or vandals/spammers ("standing") don't get shown "respect". In the eyes of the community, they've lost it. And what would} "respect" entail? Apologizing when blocking them?
- UCoC enforcement at projects with policies or guidelines conflicting it like en.wn's will be interesting to watch unfold; I expect, per "1 – Introduction" the WMF plans to take OFFICE action when a project isn't enforcing the UCoC in favor of its own policies or guidelines.
- I find it unsurprising in the three months since I raised this question no WMF staffer has responded, even when, last month, I left a message on the talk page of a staffer involved in discussions above. But I have to AGF here, don't I? Oh well. I hope someday en.wn will be successful enough for the entire community to fork off (hey, I wonder if I'll get OFFICE-glocked for saying that). Heavy Water (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps the best remedy is exposure, e.g. essays, articles, etc. that concisely and accurately describe how rules like AGF are abused to avoid accountability and worded euphemistically to serve as a debauched stand-in for principle. We have no bearing on this policy except by public critique. Most of us are hardly born critics, least of all myself. We want to cooperate and one's calling, if they feel they have one, is almost always constructive. So many people would rather not exist at all than abandon their purpose. One faces a serious dilemma because messing around with the umpteenth variation of the multi-armed bandit problem or some obscure conjecture about conformal mappings while this demented twilight zone is progressively imposed upon the entirety of western culture starts to seem like grotesque misassignment of priorities. Knowing you're right but being at a lost for words while some two-faced shyster lectures you about social justice, gender prounouns, etc. is well likely to be the most annoying moment of one's life. We are in this position partly for lack of good examples to learn from. Perhaps I should attempt to curate some, or make up a course on the subject for Wikiversity. In any case, I'm not just going to let things go their way, nor should anyone else. Orwell wrote an excellent essay, "On Politics and the English Language". The essay is accurate in that Orwell recognizes the problem and identifies many of it salient components, but it is also an imprecise and somewhat awkward essay. Even Orwell was taxed in attempting to describe and generalize the issue. Anyway, I will probably use some of what I've written here in an essay of my own. AP295 (talk)
- I wondered if you were going to go there. The rejection of AGF, for en.wn, is simply a variation in its rules as a Wikimedia project, not an endorsement of right-wing politics, or any other political ideologies, for that matter. I say this to defend Wikinews' reputation. Heavy Water (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Go where? I do not subscribe to "right wing ideology", nor is anything I've written intended as a dog-whistle to imply that I do. Take my post at face value. Just because I am irritated at the media's rhetorical abuse of the phrase "social justice" does not mean that I resent or do not value social justice. Naturally I don't demand that you AGF, but if you'd like me to clarify my opinion on any given issue, then please just ask rather than make presumptions.
- More importantly, nothing at all was said about wikinews or AGF that could possibly be construed as an endorsement of "right-wing ideology". There's no need to imitate the media's dramatic ritual of "disavowal", though it appears I've unconsciously done so too. It is not obvious that this pavlovian, knee-jerk reaction makes no sense whatsoever in this context here? Suppose I am "right wing", whatever that means to you. Suppose Hitler escaped to Brazil and I am his bastard grandson if you like. We were having a productive discourse. AP295 (talk)
- Another instance of euphemism is the third bullet point of part 2.1: "Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves." One assumes it means that we must use someone's preferred name and gender pronouns and the correct name of their race or tribe. That's entirely fine, but then, why doesn't it say exactly that? Since the UCoC already has a strong anti-harassment policy, would that not suffice? Otherwise it is very open to interpretation and therefore easy to abuse. If one uses preferred pronouns and names, but states they disagree that sex reassignment is indicated for gender dysphoria, are they in violation of the policy as it's worded now? If so, then fine, but then the policy should say as much. I would still comply with that rule and use the site, because it's then understood by everyone that the content is not an unbiased reflection of public opinion or consensus. How is vague, sugar-coated policy with carte blanche potential for censorship "left-wing"? How is one "right-wing" for speaking against it? AP295 (talk)
- There = taking the way en.wn regards AGF and the WMF's nature as part of a broader notion about how society should operate. With "right-wing politics, or any other political ideologies, for that matter" my intent was to clarify Wikinewsies didn't intend, in adopting Never assume, to promote any broader ideas for society (partly for your information and partly for anyone else who might then take a negative view toward Wikinews; the project has enough opponents already). I apologize for the lot of extrapolation from your comment in interpreting parts of it as repeating right-wing talking points, possibly implying you were just POV-pushing. I guess when one sees a lot of people who are just POV-pushing and happen to be saying similar things, one thinks the conclusions are obvious. I didn't intend to halt this discussion, though. I would agree the vagueness was likely written into 2.1.3 to allow for selectivity in enforcement. Somewhat related: m:User:Tom Morris/WMFers Say The Darndest Things. Heavy Water (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for saying so, I was worried that you might have decided to terminate the conversation right there. It would have been a bad example, so I'm glad that's not the case. Not that there are many young, impressionable children reading policy discussions on wikimedia's talk pages, but I've had conversations that ended in a similar manner on sites like reddit. AP295 (talk)
- Not that you asked, but you may or may not be interested in an essay I'm writing on the subject of political media in the United States: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Socialism/America%27s_political_idiom It's a work in progress and presently quite a mess but the point is pretty clear. I inserted a couple of comments that I made here too. The left/right dichotomy as it exists in the media (and therefore also to some extent in the public's mind) is essentially just hokum. One long-running TV drama. Pomp and pantomime. I'd go on but I'd just be repeating what I've already written in the essay, and I don't want to get off topic.
- Suffice to say, that (for example) there's significant possibility Clinton was/is a serial rapist (see Hitchens 1999) and Kissinger a mass murderer (Hitchens 2001) and both go about unmolested while we are here blathering ritual "disavowals" of ideological motive for fear of reprisal is a perfect example of the demented, pavlovian behavior that we seem to feel is expected of us and that we have come to expect from others. It seems trite to complain about "political correctness", but it really is a cancer. Suppose one didn't want to humor gender pronouns or the concept of gender being different from sex. Suppose they club baby seals on the weekends. In moral terms they'd still be well ahead of the people we're expected to endorse for the sake of "political correctness". Anyone who has any genuine ideological perspective at all probably is, because they are willing to stand on principle, however misguided it may or may not be. I won't let it be implied that ideology (that is, to have an ideal) is unacceptable or anti-social. UCoC part 2 and so much other policy in that vein are, in spirit, just fine. It's the way they're worded and enforced that promotes an awful culture, but of course to isolate this problem one must insinuate bad faith, one must be negative, one must be critical. I'll be surprised if our conversation has any immediate bearing on UCoC or other policy, but it's still a worthwhile conversation to have, if for no reason other than to hash it out for readers and for our own skills in critical discourse. AP295 (talk)
- Not touching that one, eh? I can understand, with your project being up in the air. But then, I'm a bit confused myself. What's the point of news if you have to walk on eggshells and avoid uncomfortable or inconvenient topics? Hitchens was no crackpot. He was the archetypal far-left pundit. Anyway, my suggestion is to do away with part two of the UCoC entirely, which I feel is strongly supported by this discussion. AP295 (talk)
- After considering the problem a bit more, I'm convinced even AGF would be relatively benign if not for the following sentence: Criticism should be delivered in a sensitive and constructive manner. This encourages people to take criticism personally. Honest and straightforward criticism of an author's work must not be taken as criticism of its author or treated as incivility, regardless of the extent to which the work is contradicted. Obviously a critique should not be barbaric, but nor should its value and acceptability as a contribution be subject to additional and ill-defined qualifiers such as "constructive" or worse yet "sensitive". Nor should it be debased by euphemism and other attempts at sparing the ego of the author, who would almost certainly prefer a plain-language critique to being patronized if they themselves are participating in good faith. I can humor gender pronouns and other such things, but it seems to undermine the stated mission of many projects if criticism and critics themselves are dispensed with simply by feigning indignation and treating their contribution as a personal attack rather than another form of collaboration, no less valuable than the next. One need not make any statement about the author so AGF is easy enough to comply with so long as a distinction is made between an author and their work. The editor is entitled to humanity, decency and other such niceties. However in publishing their work, are they not obliged to accept criticism of that work? One can hardly even call that a vestige of accountability, but merely acknowledgement that no contribution should be immune to criticism and that criticism shouldn't be subject to the possibility of arbitrary sanction by needlessly vague policy. I hope but do not expect that someone will offer a counterargument if not seriously consider removing this part of the policy, which is far-reaching in its effect. Wikipedia alone is frequently a first-page result on most search engines for any given query. If one asks the amazon echo a question, it often quotes Wikipedia. It seems there ought to be some degree of accountability at least for policy. AP295 (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can't help feeling a bit dense for not isolating this sentence earlier. I probably would have if it were not set within the other, equally wishy-washy prose of part two, all of which makes a vaguely irritating impression and strikes me as unnecessary. But it's this sentence that singles out and places constraints upon criticism while subtly conflating an author with their work that I feel is the most harmful and which I should probably have picked up on sooner. In any case, I feel the above paragraph is a strong prima facie argument for the removal of at least that sentence from UCoC, and perhaps also for a guideline to the effect of what I've written above. While I'm not sure it will be acknowledged by those whom it may concern, I'm pretty damned sure it won't be refuted. As always, comments, concerns, suggestions, hate mail and so forth are all welcome. Personally I'm delighted by any sort of feedback. While I don't presume that I myself am worthy of anyone's attention, I find the apparent disinterest in conversation on wikipedia and its sister projects wholly bizarre and unnatural, and much of the conversation that does occur is administrative, so to speak, rather than actual discourse. I don't know how anyone could stand to be so cagey and standoffish all the time, but that's my impression of the typical editor, and this is also true of other social media sites and often in real life as well. Sometimes I feel that most people hardly even act like humans. Strange times. AP295 (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Besides AGF and the vague qualifications on critique, the remainder of UCoC part two mostly just amounts to public relations fluff. The entire section could and probably should be replaced with Observe common decency and show respect to other users. This is a broad yet clear directive that concisely sums up the whole of part two, or at least the parts that are worthwhile. Incidentally, if privileged users are not behaving in accordance with the UCoC and the issue isn't resolved on that project, what recourse do other users have? I realize that the WMF does not want to hear about each and every dispute that occurs, but it often appears that privileged users are not accountable to these rules in the slightest so long as there's a consensus among themselves. AP295 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Heavy Water,
- I have wiki-met you on the English Wikinews site where I have been sporadically contributing since I was indefinitely blocked on enwp in 2017. I wanted to tell you that I never understood why the enwn opposes AGF. BTW this is only one of the several reasons why I do not participate on enwn very often. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Heavy Water: I forgot to mention that I have contributed to several discussions about the UCOC at WD and COMMONS IIRC, but until I followed you here I had no idea this is where members of the community can participate openly in discussion. I had assumed that discussions were taking place on META where I am infinitely blocked, so cannot participate Ottawahitech (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I guess the discussion is not taking place here, after all. This is all very strange if the wmf-staff really wants to hear our views. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ottawahitech: The general lack of public discourse is striking. It's remarkable not just on this page or on this website but in general. I'm somewhat at a loss to explain this as well, though political and intellectual quietism seems favorable to the status quo and I suspect it's at least in part an intentional effect of broad social engineering. People don't really talk about public matters in general. The pomp and undignified exposition that is western political media is probably designed to be somewhat repellent and perhaps as a result it has become fashionable simply not to have an opinion on such matters, i.e., to be "neutral". What you've written essentially comprises a reductio ad absurdum argument. That is to say, they do not care for our input. This doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't offer it. AP295 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- @AP295: I am not sure that the wmf-staff does not want to hear us.
- I have seen several UCOC notices published on the English wikibooks and have responded to a couple, but last I looked the staff member who posted them had not responded yet.
- There could be other reasons for the lack of discussion here, I think? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ottawahitech: The general lack of public discourse is striking. It's remarkable not just on this page or on this website but in general. I'm somewhat at a loss to explain this as well, though political and intellectual quietism seems favorable to the status quo and I suspect it's at least in part an intentional effect of broad social engineering. People don't really talk about public matters in general. The pomp and undignified exposition that is western political media is probably designed to be somewhat repellent and perhaps as a result it has become fashionable simply not to have an opinion on such matters, i.e., to be "neutral". What you've written essentially comprises a reductio ad absurdum argument. That is to say, they do not care for our input. This doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't offer it. AP295 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I guess the discussion is not taking place here, after all. This is all very strange if the wmf-staff really wants to hear our views. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Heavy Water: I forgot to mention that I have contributed to several discussions about the UCOC at WD and COMMONS IIRC, but until I followed you here I had no idea this is where members of the community can participate openly in discussion. I had assumed that discussions were taking place on META where I am infinitely blocked, so cannot participate Ottawahitech (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Grammar
Section 2.1, bullet point 3, sub-bullet point 3: "using" should be changed to "may use" for consistency with the other three sub-bullet points. As currently written, this sub-bullet point is just a noun phrase while the other three are full sentences. Einsof (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- bump
- (People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns) Ottawahitech (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
This includes imposing schemes on content intended to marginalize or ostracize
Not the first person to ask, and not the first time I'm asking. What does the last UCoC sentence mean? Is this "imposing schemes" + on + "content intended to marginalize", or is it "imposing schemes on content" (which are) "intendend to marginalize". Marginalize or ostracize whom? Any real-world examples of such behavior? Translators had a hard time understanding this sentence. PEarley (WMF)?
"I could have done it in a much more complicated way," said the Red Queen, immensely proud. Ponor (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- In context, the entire sentence seems redundant. Removing it would make the code less complicated still. AP295 (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I imagine translators have a hard time with the UCoC for the same reason they'd probably not be able to translate "smoke free" into "smoking is prohibited" unless they already understood the idiom. Much of the UCoC seems to be constructed in the vacuous dialect of contemporary PR, rather than by aiming for a clear and easily-interpreted set of rules. AP295 (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Proposed revisions - values both civility and scholarly inquiry
Excerpted from meta:User:Jaredscribe/UCoC, where I will be proposing more revisions for the annual review.
"In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour
will beshould be founded in civility, scholarly inquiry, logical discourse, collegiality, respect for verifiable truth and for eachother.solidarity and good citizenship."
These changes are proposed for the reasons stated by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics to justify his abandonment of the Platonic w:theory of forms: While both are dear, piety requires us to honor truth above our friends. --Book I chapter 6, 1096a.16. But the phrase as currently formulated in the official UCoC neglects to mention scholarly discourse, inquiry, or logic as valuable behaviors. It offers instead 5 synonyms for civility, which taken together may be used to imply and enforce "compliance" with a group consensus, which would be a recipe for w:groupthink. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jaredscribe: While I agree with the spirit of this, I think that all of these things are predicated upon critique. "Civility" is often used somewhat euphemistically to mean agreeableness, itself favorable to assent. If anything, the UCoC needs a statement that protects critique and critical contributions. It also has far too many redundancies. Generally it contains too much redundant or meaningless PR language. Christopher Hitchens put the point rather well when he wrote " In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom." Of course he wasn't talking about Wikimedia, but the point is no less relevant here. AP295 (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes - Civil, logical, scholarly critique should be protected, even when it is in dissent to whatever opinion is prevailing. Have you considered writing an w:WP:Essay with you opinions? Do you have a user page somewhere with a manifesto? A proposed rewrite of the w:WP:Civility policy? I concur that there is a need for this, and my proposal was a start. You may contribute to my m:User:Jaredscribe/UCoC#Commentary and Analysis, if you wish. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- A manifesto? Do I strike you as a Ted Kaczynski? I hope that's not the impression I give. I would like to see a provision that protects critical contributions and another rule that prohibits dishonesty. AP295 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Though since you've asked, I do have a relevant essay on wikiversity, https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Policy_and_Standards_for_Critical_Discourse. It's a critique on the design and policy of popular user-driven websites. I may end up moving it if wikiversity ever improves the documentation on content organization and namespaces and I figure out exactly how to organize my essays. However, I am blocked on wikipedia and the essay is only partly about Wikipedia anyway. AP295 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- They are not predicated upon critique, but upon conduct and discussion. Not all discussion must or should be critical, although critique is one aspect of discussion that should be protected when it is done competently and in good-faith. Much critique on wikipedia is not done that way, in my experience, which is the motivation for guidelines like this.
- I propose that all dialectic - including talk pages, edit summaries, user talk pages, in person meetups, multiple live drafts (as in w:WP:Bold-refine - should be founded in "scholarly inquiry" and "analytical discourse" ('logical discourse'), which includes critique but starts before goes far beyond it.
- Jaredscribe (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I agree with the spirit and think such a change would be an improvement, but that's not saying much. Deleting the sentence entirely would be better yet. Phrases like founded in scholarly inquiry still amount to wooden language. That is, non-specific and somewhat meaningless. A statement such as I suggest would protect dissenting contributions and critique without such ambiguity. AP295 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes - Civil, logical, scholarly critique should be protected, even when it is in dissent to whatever opinion is prevailing. Have you considered writing an w:WP:Essay with you opinions? Do you have a user page somewhere with a manifesto? A proposed rewrite of the w:WP:Civility policy? I concur that there is a need for this, and my proposal was a start. You may contribute to my m:User:Jaredscribe/UCoC#Commentary and Analysis, if you wish. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I should say though that I'd be quite surprised if they obliged my request in the near term. It's not as though the people who make these decisions are oblivious to these points. On the contrary. Hitchens also had something to say about this, (or rather Chomsky did, but I don't have Chomsky's original quote) "Noam Chomsky, a most distinguished intellectual and moral dissident, once wrote that the old motto about “speaking truth to power” is overrated. Power, as he points out, quite probably knows the truth already, and is mainly interested in suppressing or limiting or distorting it. We would therefore do better to try to instruct the powerless. " It's irritating how often I have to cite Hitchens. It makes me look like a fanatic (which I'm not), but I suppose I should be glad to have at least one 'authority' to cite. Anyway, the points should still be made, and one should not presume they're lost upon the decision makers. AP295 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
U4C Charter
Will the U4C Charter eventually be moved to this wiki? Just wondering. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- While things remain under development, we are keeping much of that on Meta-Wiki. However, if @PEarley (WMF) is open to it (ultimately - it is up to the Trust & Safety team) - that is something we can certainly do at some point. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, meant to ping @JEissfeldt (WMF). Force of habit - apologies. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Admins/sysops issuing a block should be required to cite the offending diff(s) and the specific (official) rule/policy violated in the block log message
(Edit: I made an RfC on metawiki for this proposal after making some changes and refinements to it, and anyone is welcome to comment there if it's still open: [1] AP295 (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC))
It's the minimum amount of record-keeping and organization required for public accountability. Otherwise it can be quite hard for an observer to determine why a user was blocked and whether or not the user actually broke any rules, let alone to collect data in aggregate for research, journalism, or other study. It would only take a moment for the blocking admin to record this information. They wouldn't have to provide every single offending diff, only enough to show that the action is justified. AP295 (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I heartily endorse this observation. I have been blocked from the English Wikipedia as a result of mob action that was orchestrated by two individuals and which masqueraded as “community consensus”. When first appealed a third individual wrote an assessment of my actions which were not only totally unsubstantiated, but were verging on the libellous. When I have tried to get myself reinstated I am told “Admit your faults”. When I ask “What were my faults”, all that I get is a deafening silence. Martinvl (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- "I have been blocked from the English Wikipedia as a result of mob action that was orchestrated by two individuals and which masqueraded as “community consensus”" How would I know? Maybe it's obvious, maybe it's not obvious. Maybe you deserved it. Maybe you didn't. I'm not going to investigate though.
- Loaded questions like "what were you blocked for?" would not be necessary if there were a basic record. Sometimes they even do cite the information in the block log. Most of the time they don't though. AP295 (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- But assuming you were blocked dishonestly, thanks for your support. I should have realized sooner that poor record-keeping is what allows unaccountable blocking and abuse. Otherwise it would be obvious to anyone who simply checked the log. Even in the cases where one can quickly figure it out, it's impossible to automatically associate blocks with diffs for research purposes. In many cases it involves finding a handful of archived pages or past versions without any links. It is impractical. I really doubt the volume of banned editors would pose a problem, as it would only take a moment to add this info. It is not laborious. I anticipate one objection might be the (trivial) inconvenience of entering the information, but in that case the rule could apply only for editors with accounts and exclude IP editors, who are usually given short-term blocks for things like vandalism. There's no excuse whatsoever not to do require this. Of course I'm open to counterarguments, but as I see it the only reason one would object to this is because they intend to abuse blocks and issue them for reasons other than rule/policy violations.
- Like I mentioned, in a few days I'll start an RfC on meta. I'm presently on a short-term block on meta, so I'll have to wait a few days but feel free to make one yourself and link/quote this topic. (unless you really did deserve your ban, in which case you may not be the best representative, but I welcome your input in the upcoming RfC at any rate.) Otherwise leave it to me, but if I don't make one for whatever reason (hit by a bus, block extended, etc.) you should do so yourself. This would probably fix the problem of sysop/admin abuse on wikimedia projects so I consider it kind of important. Hopefully more than just us two will show interest. At the very least, it would look suspect to reject this idea, for reasons I've already mentioned.
- "Admit your faults". Users are practically never given the chance to appeal on the basis of policy. Rather, a user blocked unfairly is expected to validate and endorse this abuse to make it appear credible. Actually all blocked users are expected to do this as a matter of course. I doubt those who use their admin/sysop privileges dishonestly or abusively really want to argue on the basis of policy as opposed to the far more convenient presumption that their actions were appropriate and the user's were not, so the process is applied indiscriminately to make it a de-facto standard. Of course, one only really learns this after they've been blocked. The relevant behavioral guidelines [2] give one the superficial impression that when users are blocked unfairly, the mistake will be rectified immediately, "If there is agreement that you may have been blocked unfairly, you may be directly unblocked ". Yet they quickly go on to qualify this, "but this is very rare unless there genuinely were no prospective grounds for the block. Usually the blocking admin's judgement is respected if there is any question of doubt". Notice the doublespeak here. What they've said can be equivalently stated: your block won't be considered unfair if it's plausible, i.e. if it's something they can get away with, you will remain blocked. The lack of a basic record with diffs and policy citations protects this plausibility, as a proper record would make it instantly apparent whether or not it was justified and remove any ambiguity or presumption of guilt, which is the only standard they seem to be held to. It's all vague enough to be believable, and plenty of users who are blocked do deserve it, so unfair blocks are more or less impossible for the user to contest. They should also change that part of the guidelines. There's no honest reason for this additional qualifying sentence. Why wouldn't they just say that if your block was unfair, you'll be unblocked. Does that not suffice? Wouldn't that be the sensible thing to do? Also, look at the euphemistic phrasing, blocking admin's judgement is respected if there is any question of doubt. This is a presumption of guilt and should be removed, or just stated as such so that they cannot maintain this pretense of fairness and concern. AP295 (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- One last observation: I almost missed it, "If there is agreement that you may have been blocked unfairly, the operative word here being "agreement". So it only takes one user to veto an unblock. Not that it seems there's ever much disagreement among sysops/admins. They typically just all agree with one another, and certainly I've never seen an admin come to a user's defense against other admins. Perhaps this is just a belt-and-braces approach, just in case. As you can see though the entire process is designed to allow abuse. There is no real policy on wikipedia. They just do whatever is convenient. Having no consistently and fairly enforced policy makes it easily exploitable and it probably serves as a tool of propaganda for various private interests, which are known to resent law and order. You can never say that someone might be acting in that capacity, per w:WP:AGF, which demands credulity from the user and can be equivalently stated as "do not question the motives of others". The whole site is screwed up and stacked against the well-meaning editor, and my suggestion here would be a good start to fixing it. Do I think they'll accept it? Maybe. Probably not. (not really) Yet I have to ask anyway. One must maintain the expectation of fairness, even if one does not anticipate they will receive it. Anything less is nihilistic. AP295 (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Gotta say though, I might just leave after I make the RfC. There are far too many two-faced, mean-spirited people here. Not only do I suspect many of them have ulterior motives, but they are often spiteful just for the hell of it. It's a shame all the public ever sees is the marketing. One wouldn't have a clue just looking at the rules, front page, or even most talk pages. Just look at the main page here on WMF, which has quite an air of officiality and gives the impression it's a highly-ordered and well-managed site. I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen just awful behavior (some of it I suspect due to ulterior motives, but also largely just spiteful, guttural, crude and blatantly in violation of so-called policy.) One is treated as a nuisance for honest editing. As just a single example, look at my appeal on my wiktionary talk page, which has gone ignored for months. The pretenses of social responsibility and community give wikipedia and other projects a public image that is really quite undeserved. Personally I'll never feel a pang of social obligation ever again looking at the fundraising banners. AP295 (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this idea. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pretty much every other site works this way. Users are blocked for one or more specific contributions. What's the point of a block log in the first place if it's full of meaningless entries like "Clearly not here to built an encyclopedia"? That isn't how a fair community is run. The talk page message they leave rarely contains much info either. The appeal process fits neatly into the pattern of abuse I described above, as even the standard offer is apparently conditioned on your "affirmation" of the blocking admin's original misconduct, i.e. "explaining what one did wrong". Consider also how difficult it would be to apply oversight without a real block log. Doesn't that suggest nobody really ever double checks or re-evaluates these blocks? AP295 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the ideal structure would be for the block log to contain the diff to the posting where the block is imposed and the this posting should in turn contain a diff pointing to the original accusation which in turn should contain diffs that justify the accusation. If any of these diffs are missing, the block should be declared null and void as the to verify a meaningful acknowledgement is missing. Martinvl (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow. At any rate, it should positively identify which contribution(s) a user was blocked for and cite specific policy. Hardly a tall order. An alternative to citing diffs would be a simple tool that allows one to highlight text on a permalinked page (the most recent version at the time the block is issued), but there's little reason that diffs wouldn't do for the time being. Either would allow easy positive ID of the 'offending' contribs as well as their context. Anything less is neither transparent nor conducive to public accountability. AP295 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even just requiring a permalink to the relevant page(s) at the time the block is issued and linking the relevant policy would be a great improvement, for practically zero effort. AP295 (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the ideal structure would be for the block log to contain the diff to the posting where the block is imposed and the this posting should in turn contain a diff pointing to the original accusation which in turn should contain diffs that justify the accusation. If any of these diffs are missing, the block should be declared null and void as the to verify a meaningful acknowledgement is missing. Martinvl (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pretty much every other site works this way. Users are blocked for one or more specific contributions. What's the point of a block log in the first place if it's full of meaningless entries like "Clearly not here to built an encyclopedia"? That isn't how a fair community is run. The talk page message they leave rarely contains much info either. The appeal process fits neatly into the pattern of abuse I described above, as even the standard offer is apparently conditioned on your "affirmation" of the blocking admin's original misconduct, i.e. "explaining what one did wrong". Consider also how difficult it would be to apply oversight without a real block log. Doesn't that suggest nobody really ever double checks or re-evaluates these blocks? AP295 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose either diffs or permalinks would work. It would be effortless to do this, and crucially, it would enable both accountability for individual actions as well as data collection for research. In the latter case, one could identify biases, censorship and other trends in the aggregate, which would otherwise be difficult to recognize and substantiate. These projects reach millions of people. They present themselves as open to public participation and no doubt many users presume content is subject to public scrutiny. Both editors and the public are owed a degree of transparency. AP295 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @AP295: I am surprised at the interest you managed to arouse in this proposal both here and on META. Thanks for putting in the time and thought.
- Unfortunately it appears that some participants on META assume that wrongful blocks are always abusive blocks, which they attribute to only a small number of cases. However, In my experience there are many more hastily executed blocks executed in good faith than abusive ones. The blocking admin is simply in a hurry and does not take the time to thoroughly investigate before issuing the block. This is true both on the English Wikipedia (enwp) and also on the smaller projects. Your proposal will force admins to think before they act, but I can see why many would object to it. Many admins and non-admins alike believe that there aren't enough admins as it is. Requiring admins to do even more work is a non-starter, unless it can be balanced with the good it will do. So how can we frame this proposal in terms that emphasize the positives that will come out of it?
- Since you have already anticipated the excessive-time objection in your META introduction ("Taking the extra moment to copy a few links would hardly be a nuisance in most cases, but for the sake of argument let's say a project is so short-handed that they cannot apply this rule for every user. From a cursory look at the wikipedia block log (as an example), it seems that roughly half of all blocks are issued to ip users. IPs do not seem to receive long blocks in the first place and so limiting this policy just to those blocks issued to registered users would be natural. Still too much work? Apply it only for confirmed/autoconfirmed, or in the worst case extendedconfirmed users, who naturally represent a minuscule fraction of the block log (and probably deserve at least that much courtesy for the effort they've put in)"):
- how about limiting this proposal (at least initially) to only long-term blocks (say one-year or longer), and to those who have been contributing for a long time (how long?). I know you have checked the block log at the enwp - I am curious to find out how many long-term contributors are blocked for more than a year every month? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Your proposal will force admins to think before they act, but I can see why many would object to it." I actually don't see why any admin acting in good faith should object to this. "Unfortunately it appears that some participants on META assume that wrongful blocks are always abusive blocks, which they attribute to only a small number of cases. However, In my experience there are many more hastily executed blocks executed in good faith than abusive ones. The blocking admin is simply in a hurry and does not take the time to thoroughly investigate before issuing the block. [...] how about limiting this proposal (at least initially) to only long-term blocks (say one-year or longer), and to those who have been contributing for a long time (how long?)" It's up to them. EC users at least should all be included, though frankly it ought to be applied for any registered user and all blocks. Indefinite blocks seem to be handed out quite commonly, without reference to official policy, and apparently without corrective intent. This is at least negligent, if not abusive. Why would they issue an indef instead of a shorter block if they were in doubt? At most, indefs should be used very infrequently and only in exceptional cases. I was tempted to mention this but the RfC needed to be as focused as possible. Bear in mind this requirement should also enable the public (e.g. researchers, watchdogs, journalists, etc.) to conduct research and hopefully recognize when blocks are being used to bias content. "Many admins and non-admins alike believe that there aren't enough admins as it is. Requiring admins to do even more work is a non-starter, unless it can be balanced with the good it will do." They'd be able to attract more high-quality volunteers if the culture weren't so repellent and they didn't throw people out at the drop of a hat. The small amount of extra time it would take could be eliminated almost entirely with a few UI tools. I don't buy the "too much extra work" excuse. AP295 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- @AP295,
- I agree that the way blocks are handled creates a repellent atmosphere, but it has not caused the site to collapse, even though many have been predicting a collapse for many years. New volunteers are still flowing in and the content is slowly improving regardless.
- What percentage of the wiki-community thinks that the way volunteers are blocked is a major issue? It took me years to come to this conclusion, how long did it take you?
- Re: "The small amount of extra time it would take"
- I don't want to deter you, but I am of the opposite opinion. Nothing on this enormous site can be done with little effort. I do believe though that if you can make headway you will become a legend.
- But lets start small: re: "eliminated almost entirely with a few UI tools"
- Who is going to design and build the UIs you foresee? If you expect this to be done by foundation employees, have you ever participated in the annual wishlist on META? This has been going for years and has become a very bureaucratic process where volunteers with bright ideas try to sell the wikimedia foundation on technical tools they are sure will help everyone enormously. I have not been watching this area on META for years now, but I believe out of hundreds of ideas there only ten winners.
- Over to you...
- Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I never said it would cause the site to collapse or any such thing. If there are new volunteers then they can make some of them admins. At any rate, I believe they could apply this requirement (in one of the forms I described) right now and it would not impose a serious burden. It scales in just the way I've described. Excluding blocks less than one week and IP users (who are usually given short-term blocks and make up about half the list anyway), how many users does the average admin block on any given day? It hardly takes much time to copy a link or a few links, so if you're going to argue that it would require too much labor, you'd have to do so on the basis of volume. In that case, it can be scaled in the manner I've suggested, which you've quoted in bold a couple replies above. AP295 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Your proposal will force admins to think before they act, but I can see why many would object to it." I actually don't see why any admin acting in good faith should object to this. "Unfortunately it appears that some participants on META assume that wrongful blocks are always abusive blocks, which they attribute to only a small number of cases. However, In my experience there are many more hastily executed blocks executed in good faith than abusive ones. The blocking admin is simply in a hurry and does not take the time to thoroughly investigate before issuing the block. [...] how about limiting this proposal (at least initially) to only long-term blocks (say one-year or longer), and to those who have been contributing for a long time (how long?)" It's up to them. EC users at least should all be included, though frankly it ought to be applied for any registered user and all blocks. Indefinite blocks seem to be handed out quite commonly, without reference to official policy, and apparently without corrective intent. This is at least negligent, if not abusive. Why would they issue an indef instead of a shorter block if they were in doubt? At most, indefs should be used very infrequently and only in exceptional cases. I was tempted to mention this but the RfC needed to be as focused as possible. Bear in mind this requirement should also enable the public (e.g. researchers, watchdogs, journalists, etc.) to conduct research and hopefully recognize when blocks are being used to bias content. "Many admins and non-admins alike believe that there aren't enough admins as it is. Requiring admins to do even more work is a non-starter, unless it can be balanced with the good it will do." They'd be able to attract more high-quality volunteers if the culture weren't so repellent and they didn't throw people out at the drop of a hat. The small amount of extra time it would take could be eliminated almost entirely with a few UI tools. I don't buy the "too much extra work" excuse. AP295 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if a meta wiki RfC would be a better venue for this discussion. I suppose I'll wait a few days and see if any functionaries reply here first, but this page oddly does not seem to get a lot of traffic. It's quite strange this isn't already required, even just for the sake of convenience so that sysop and admin decisions can be evaluated at a glance by stewards, or whoever it is that's responsible for making sure they don't go batshit (hopefully someone). I suppose it suggests that blocks are rarely if ever subject to oversight. Hardly reassuring. AP295 (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)