[Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Wil Sinclair
Martijn asked me which things I thought that some people on this list
don't want anyone to discuss, so here are the two examples that I'm
most interested in:

Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to
understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a
specific thread for that.

Harassment- I'd like to hear about existing policies around harassment
and potential changes to such policies. In particular, I'm interested
in how the community might tackle this problem to make the site a more
comfortable place for the oft-mentioned female constituent that has
long been in decline.

Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to
discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the
thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary
about of time that is more than the few months that others have
mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this
discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active
contributor.

Now, I'll just sit back and hear all sides of the story.

,Wil

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Wil Sinclair <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
> content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
> children.



Wil and all,

Note that all the links I am posting below are NSFW.


1.

The other day I found that if a Portuguese or Russian child searches in
Commons for the word "Mom" in their language, on the first page of search
results they will find this NSFW image:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs_-_29.jpg

In the Portuguese case, it's actually the top result.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=mam%C3%A3&fulltext=Search

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0&fulltext=Search

There are many other images by the same artist in Commons that parents
might find inappropriate:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs


2.

A while ago, the top result for the French word for "homework" was an old
b&w video showing sex between an actress dressed as a nun and a dog. That
particular video was eventually deleted, after enjoying a half-year stint
as one of the most-viewed files on Commons, with 20,000 to 30,000 views per
month:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv
http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/201203/File:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv

However, all the other videos from the same series are still on Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_from_Polissons_et_galipettes

Most of them show various forms of unsimulated intercourse etc.


3.

Commons contains dozens of masturbation videos uploaded by volunteers,
housed in

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_of_masturbation

Check the various subcategories like

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:GIF_videos_of_male_masturbation
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ogv_videos_of_male_masturbation

and so forth.


There is much more of that ilk, but it's a start.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Thomas Morton
In reply to this post by Wil Sinclair
>
> Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
> changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
> content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
> content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
> children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to
> understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a
> specific thread for that.
>

You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child
protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't
think that in any way works.

Our child protection policies are about protecting children when they
interact online. This is a perennial problem for any internet site, as I am
sure you know. We do have some policies that help a lot (for example,
admins always err on the side of caution and delete personal details that
underage editors post). We have avenues to report potential issues such as
grooming.

Could more be done? Yes, I've thought so; for example publicising the
problem more.

But is WP worse that other communities (note; not site) of similar size?
Probably not. At least not in my experience (which, of course, is pretty
extensive given my former job).

Child protection from porn, etc.? I think it's well established that kids
can come across porn anywhere (apparently, Facebook, if my cousins'
activity on there are anything to go by :S). And frankly, it's never struck
me as an issue under the umbrella of "xhild protection".

How far does policing it become our job and not that of a parent? It's a
difficult decision... especially when browser-based content filters are
prevelant and easy to set up.

I've always said; we should educate our users about how to install and use
content filters, as this will benefit them outside WP too!

So then, on the flip side of your comment here you have the global issue of
objectionable images.

This is a much broader issue that the narrow one you're focusing on here.
For example, one of the main (and by main I mean constant and persistent,
beyond any complaints of porn!) complaints we see relate to images of the
prophet mohammed.

How do you, then, feel about Commons hosting images like that?

One of the tenets of the projects are that they are not censored, which I
think is a good thing. However, we've not yet struck a balance between
displaying everything and filtering things an individual doesn't want to
see.

I like the Mohammed example because it emphasises the problem where those
of us who are not Muslim find a subset of images perfectly okay, but a
Muslim might not.



>
> Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to
> discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the
> thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary
> about of time that is more than the few months that others have
> mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this
> discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active
> contributor.
>

I'm not sure what purpose it serves to bring up controversial topics, in
this forum, with an express note that you have nothing new to bring? ;)

Not to be too critical; but do you imagine that these issues aren't being
discussed on the various projects - hopefully with incremental improvement
each time. Or that individuals here are not aware of them?

More than anything though, I'm sure you're an experienced internet chap -
what did you expect to recieve in stirring up two relatively ingrained
"sides"? It wasn't very deft, I have to observe :)

One thing it might be important to communicate is that whilst this list is
useful for global discussion, it's not a venue that any agreement or
consensus is reached. So these discussions are really best conducted
on-wiki. I'm not sure if you've actually attempted to open such topics on
any of the projects, but the discussion you appear to be looking for can
really only happen there (rather than here, or IRC, for example).

Regards,
Tom
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Craig Franklin
On 29 May 2014 07:13, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >
> > Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
> > changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
> > content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
> > content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
> > children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to
> > understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a
> > specific thread for that.
> >
>
> You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child
> protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't
> think that in any way works.
>

Indeed, and the "unexpected search results on Commons" matter has been
discussed at length here and on the projects, and at length, and recently.
 I don't think there's any reluctance to discuss this, there is a general
consensus that there's a problem, but different folks offer different
solutions.  On the other hand, coming out with ways to protect minors from
predators on our projects, without throwing out the bathwater as well,
would probably be an interesting discussion that I don't recall being
raised here recently.

Cheers,
Craig
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Wil Sinclair
In reply to this post by Thomas Morton
Sorry, the n00b has to step in with a couple of clarifications. :) I
was asking about 2 separate issues, so no conflation there.

Also I asked very carefully for *all* sides of the issues: "Now, I'll
just sit back and hear all sides of the story."

All right, back on topic! :)

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Thomas Morton
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>>
>> Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
>> changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
>> content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
>> content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
>> children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to
>> understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a
>> specific thread for that.
>>
>
> You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child
> protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't
> think that in any way works.
>
> Our child protection policies are about protecting children when they
> interact online. This is a perennial problem for any internet site, as I am
> sure you know. We do have some policies that help a lot (for example,
> admins always err on the side of caution and delete personal details that
> underage editors post). We have avenues to report potential issues such as
> grooming.
>
> Could more be done? Yes, I've thought so; for example publicising the
> problem more.
>
> But is WP worse that other communities (note; not site) of similar size?
> Probably not. At least not in my experience (which, of course, is pretty
> extensive given my former job).
>
> Child protection from porn, etc.? I think it's well established that kids
> can come across porn anywhere (apparently, Facebook, if my cousins'
> activity on there are anything to go by :S). And frankly, it's never struck
> me as an issue under the umbrella of "xhild protection".
>
> How far does policing it become our job and not that of a parent? It's a
> difficult decision... especially when browser-based content filters are
> prevelant and easy to set up.
>
> I've always said; we should educate our users about how to install and use
> content filters, as this will benefit them outside WP too!
>
> So then, on the flip side of your comment here you have the global issue of
> objectionable images.
>
> This is a much broader issue that the narrow one you're focusing on here.
> For example, one of the main (and by main I mean constant and persistent,
> beyond any complaints of porn!) complaints we see relate to images of the
> prophet mohammed.
>
> How do you, then, feel about Commons hosting images like that?
>
> One of the tenets of the projects are that they are not censored, which I
> think is a good thing. However, we've not yet struck a balance between
> displaying everything and filtering things an individual doesn't want to
> see.
>
> I like the Mohammed example because it emphasises the problem where those
> of us who are not Muslim find a subset of images perfectly okay, but a
> Muslim might not.
>
>
>
>>
>> Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to
>> discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the
>> thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary
>> about of time that is more than the few months that others have
>> mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this
>> discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active
>> contributor.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what purpose it serves to bring up controversial topics, in
> this forum, with an express note that you have nothing new to bring? ;)
>
> Not to be too critical; but do you imagine that these issues aren't being
> discussed on the various projects - hopefully with incremental improvement
> each time. Or that individuals here are not aware of them?
>
> More than anything though, I'm sure you're an experienced internet chap -
> what did you expect to recieve in stirring up two relatively ingrained
> "sides"? It wasn't very deft, I have to observe :)
>
> One thing it might be important to communicate is that whilst this list is
> useful for global discussion, it's not a venue that any agreement or
> consensus is reached. So these discussions are really best conducted
> on-wiki. I'm not sure if you've actually attempted to open such topics on
> any of the projects, but the discussion you appear to be looking for can
> really only happen there (rather than here, or IRC, for example).
>
> Regards,
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Thyge
Please raise and discuss questions about policy on meta. This is not the
place.

Regards,
Thyge


2014-05-28 23:54 GMT+02:00 Wil Sinclair <[hidden email]>:

> Sorry, the n00b has to step in with a couple of clarifications. :) I
> was asking about 2 separate issues, so no conflation there.
>
> Also I asked very carefully for *all* sides of the issues: "Now, I'll
> just sit back and hear all sides of the story."
>
> All right, back on topic! :)
>
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Thomas Morton
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
> >> changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
> >> content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
> >> content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
> >> children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to
> >> understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a
> >> specific thread for that.
> >>
> >
> > You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child
> > protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't
> > think that in any way works.
> >
> > Our child protection policies are about protecting children when they
> > interact online. This is a perennial problem for any internet site, as I
> am
> > sure you know. We do have some policies that help a lot (for example,
> > admins always err on the side of caution and delete personal details that
> > underage editors post). We have avenues to report potential issues such
> as
> > grooming.
> >
> > Could more be done? Yes, I've thought so; for example publicising the
> > problem more.
> >
> > But is WP worse that other communities (note; not site) of similar size?
> > Probably not. At least not in my experience (which, of course, is pretty
> > extensive given my former job).
> >
> > Child protection from porn, etc.? I think it's well established that kids
> > can come across porn anywhere (apparently, Facebook, if my cousins'
> > activity on there are anything to go by :S). And frankly, it's never
> struck
> > me as an issue under the umbrella of "xhild protection".
> >
> > How far does policing it become our job and not that of a parent? It's a
> > difficult decision... especially when browser-based content filters are
> > prevelant and easy to set up.
> >
> > I've always said; we should educate our users about how to install and
> use
> > content filters, as this will benefit them outside WP too!
> >
> > So then, on the flip side of your comment here you have the global issue
> of
> > objectionable images.
> >
> > This is a much broader issue that the narrow one you're focusing on here.
> > For example, one of the main (and by main I mean constant and persistent,
> > beyond any complaints of porn!) complaints we see relate to images of the
> > prophet mohammed.
> >
> > How do you, then, feel about Commons hosting images like that?
> >
> > One of the tenets of the projects are that they are not censored, which I
> > think is a good thing. However, we've not yet struck a balance between
> > displaying everything and filtering things an individual doesn't want to
> > see.
> >
> > I like the Mohammed example because it emphasises the problem where those
> > of us who are not Muslim find a subset of images perfectly okay, but a
> > Muslim might not.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to
> >> discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the
> >> thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary
> >> about of time that is more than the few months that others have
> >> mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this
> >> discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active
> >> contributor.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure what purpose it serves to bring up controversial topics, in
> > this forum, with an express note that you have nothing new to bring? ;)
> >
> > Not to be too critical; but do you imagine that these issues aren't being
> > discussed on the various projects - hopefully with incremental
> improvement
> > each time. Or that individuals here are not aware of them?
> >
> > More than anything though, I'm sure you're an experienced internet chap -
> > what did you expect to recieve in stirring up two relatively ingrained
> > "sides"? It wasn't very deft, I have to observe :)
> >
> > One thing it might be important to communicate is that whilst this list
> is
> > useful for global discussion, it's not a venue that any agreement or
> > consensus is reached. So these discussions are really best conducted
> > on-wiki. I'm not sure if you've actually attempted to open such topics on
> > any of the projects, but the discussion you appear to be looking for can
> > really only happen there (rather than here, or IRC, for example).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tom
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Martijn Hoekstra
In reply to this post by Wil Sinclair
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Wil Sinclair <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Martijn asked me which things I thought that some people on this list
> don't want anyone to discuss, so here are the two examples that I'm
> most interested in:
>
> Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
> changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
> content on Commons.


There is content on Wikipedia and on Commons, and probably on other
projects as well, that most probably doesn't find suitable for children.
What makes the matter worse is that some searches that one doesn't expect
to bring up sexually explicit content do in fact bring it up, i.e. the
famous toothbrush image. There are a couple of separate questions.

* Is the presence of sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why?
* Is the abundance of sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why?
* Is the unexpectedly turning up of the sexually explicit material on
commons a problem? Why?

Most agree that the presence of sexually explicit material on commons in
itself is not a problem in itself, and if it is, hosting some educational
material on sexually explicit subjects is more important than shielding
children from accessing the material.

The abundance of sexually explicit material on commons is odd, and probably
worthless. We frankly don't need any more low quality pictures and videos
of penises, masturbation, and other sexual acts that we already have lots
of. Does it really hurt us to have so much of it though? As long as it
doesn't get in the way, I'd say no. I'm not a commons person, and I know
that loads of low quality redundant sexually explicit images have already
been deleted - because it does get in the way. Should more be deleted?
Likely. Should all of it be deleted? No. So what should we do? On each
upload ask if it is a low quality sexually explicit image that doesn't
really add anything to the content that's already there? That makes for an
odd upload form. Ask those uploading not to upload more? I do believe we're
already doing that, to little effect. (correct me if I'm wrong, if we're
not, we probably should) But again, it's not it's presence that's a
problem, it's its in-the-wayness.

It has been argued, and I agree with that, that there are two categories of
people finding sexually explicit material in commons. Those explicitly
trying to find it, and those that come across it by accident. This goes for
all age groups. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that those looking
for it will find it no matter what, and that shouldn't be the focus of
improvement. What should be a focus, is improving the search functionality
so that the accidental doesn't happen, or at least doesn't happen so
ridiculously often as it does now: that is what I mean with it being in the
way, as demonstrated by the famous toothbrush search result. Categorization
and tagging could play a large role in this, as well as (recently
implemented) improvements in the search back-end. It's something that has
recently been brought up on this list. I'm horrible with the archives, but
I'm sure someone else will be able to point to the relevant discussion, and
what, if anything, has been undertaken on commons to act on this, or what
blockers we still have.

Now I've focused only on sexually explicit content, because that's whats
mostly what bothers people. Obviously, there is lots of other material I
wouldn't like to expose children to. There has been a recent discussion
about (valuable, suitable, and greatly disturbing) video material of WWII
concentration camps being on the front page of commons. There is also a lot
of images of medical issues that aren't the nicest to look at to put it
mildly, and there is a lot of material on the atrocities of war as well.
The first and third arguments go for this as well.

These problems are discussed frequently and have been quite recently. We
haven't found and implemented a solution though. What I can say is that the
'objectional images on commons' subject is a frequent subject for this
mailinglist. It's not that we don't want anyone to discuss it, but more
that we discuss it all the time, would love to fix it, and haven't been
able yet. Which makes many a little annoyed with someone from the outside
coming in with an 'hey, hey, what about all the dick pics on commons? Did
you know about those?'. We know, we're all annoyed with it, not only
because it makes us a just target of ridicule, but more importantly because
we've went over it again and again, quite often and quite recently, and we
haven't got an answer yet. The community has discussed the fairly obvious
option - an image filter - at great length, and didn't find that an
acceptable solution.



> I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
> content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
> children.


lots and lots and lots. It's not hard to find. I've already touched on some
subjects above, it should be easy to find.


> Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to
> understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a
> specific thread for that.
>
> Harassment- I'd like to hear about existing policies around harassment
> and potential changes to such policies. In particular, I'm interested
> in how the community might tackle this problem to make the site a more
> comfortable place for the oft-mentioned female constituent that has
> long been in decline.
>

> Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to
> discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the
> thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary
> about of time that is more than the few months that others have
> mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this
> discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active
> contributor.
>
> Now, I'll just sit back and hear all sides of the story.
>
> ,Wil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@...>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Thyge
On May 29, 2014 5:33 AM, "Thyge" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Please raise and discuss questions about policy on meta. This is not the
> place.
>
> Regards,
> Thyge
>

Wil, I suggest that you do go to http://meta.wikimedia.org and find pages
about these issues. *Read the archives of the talk pages*. And start new
discussions on those talk pages. Assume the 'meta' project has a discussion
page for every issue you can think of. If you cant find something on meta,
ask someone who is active on meta (check recent changes)

Also read the archives of wikimedia-l for at least 2013 and 2014, to get a
feel for this list, and to be aware of where we are 'at' on issues which
are discussed every year. Then you can start new threads which pick up from
where we left of last time.

Keep in mind wikimedia-l is mandatory reading for a lot of very busy
volunteers and NGO staff at all levels and who have varying levels of
English proficiency. wikimedia-l doubles as an business forum for our many
NGOs.

Every email to this list has an opportunity cost. It is peoples time being
consumed.

--
John Vandenberg
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Wil Sinclair
In reply to this post by Martijn Hoekstra
Stepping in to add another aspect to both questions, as I think it
might focus the discussion.

Child Protection: Are children encouraged to use commons through any
programs or outreach efforts of any kind? If so, is it morally and/or
ethically justifiable to do so without protecting children in every
way possible? Can that be done without removing graphic pics from
commons?

Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
to hear about this from a female perspective.

Thanks.
,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Wil Sinclair <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Martijn asked me which things I thought that some people on this list
>> don't want anyone to discuss, so here are the two examples that I'm
>> most interested in:
>>
>> Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be
>> changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the
>> content on Commons.
>
>
> There is content on Wikipedia and on Commons, and probably on other
> projects as well, that most probably doesn't find suitable for children.
> What makes the matter worse is that some searches that one doesn't expect
> to bring up sexually explicit content do in fact bring it up, i.e. the
> famous toothbrush image. There are a couple of separate questions.
>
> * Is the presence of sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why?
> * Is the abundance of sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why?
> * Is the unexpectedly turning up of the sexually explicit material on
> commons a problem? Why?
>
> Most agree that the presence of sexually explicit material on commons in
> itself is not a problem in itself, and if it is, hosting some educational
> material on sexually explicit subjects is more important than shielding
> children from accessing the material.
>
> The abundance of sexually explicit material on commons is odd, and probably
> worthless. We frankly don't need any more low quality pictures and videos
> of penises, masturbation, and other sexual acts that we already have lots
> of. Does it really hurt us to have so much of it though? As long as it
> doesn't get in the way, I'd say no. I'm not a commons person, and I know
> that loads of low quality redundant sexually explicit images have already
> been deleted - because it does get in the way. Should more be deleted?
> Likely. Should all of it be deleted? No. So what should we do? On each
> upload ask if it is a low quality sexually explicit image that doesn't
> really add anything to the content that's already there? That makes for an
> odd upload form. Ask those uploading not to upload more? I do believe we're
> already doing that, to little effect. (correct me if I'm wrong, if we're
> not, we probably should) But again, it's not it's presence that's a
> problem, it's its in-the-wayness.
>
> It has been argued, and I agree with that, that there are two categories of
> people finding sexually explicit material in commons. Those explicitly
> trying to find it, and those that come across it by accident. This goes for
> all age groups. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that those looking
> for it will find it no matter what, and that shouldn't be the focus of
> improvement. What should be a focus, is improving the search functionality
> so that the accidental doesn't happen, or at least doesn't happen so
> ridiculously often as it does now: that is what I mean with it being in the
> way, as demonstrated by the famous toothbrush search result. Categorization
> and tagging could play a large role in this, as well as (recently
> implemented) improvements in the search back-end. It's something that has
> recently been brought up on this list. I'm horrible with the archives, but
> I'm sure someone else will be able to point to the relevant discussion, and
> what, if anything, has been undertaken on commons to act on this, or what
> blockers we still have.
>
> Now I've focused only on sexually explicit content, because that's whats
> mostly what bothers people. Obviously, there is lots of other material I
> wouldn't like to expose children to. There has been a recent discussion
> about (valuable, suitable, and greatly disturbing) video material of WWII
> concentration camps being on the front page of commons. There is also a lot
> of images of medical issues that aren't the nicest to look at to put it
> mildly, and there is a lot of material on the atrocities of war as well.
> The first and third arguments go for this as well.
>
> These problems are discussed frequently and have been quite recently. We
> haven't found and implemented a solution though. What I can say is that the
> 'objectional images on commons' subject is a frequent subject for this
> mailinglist. It's not that we don't want anyone to discuss it, but more
> that we discuss it all the time, would love to fix it, and haven't been
> able yet. Which makes many a little annoyed with someone from the outside
> coming in with an 'hey, hey, what about all the dick pics on commons? Did
> you know about those?'. We know, we're all annoyed with it, not only
> because it makes us a just target of ridicule, but more importantly because
> we've went over it again and again, quite often and quite recently, and we
> haven't got an answer yet. The community has discussed the fairly obvious
> option - an image filter - at great length, and didn't find that an
> acceptable solution.
>
>
>
>> I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
>> content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
>> children.
>
>
> lots and lots and lots. It's not hard to find. I've already touched on some
> subjects above, it should be easy to find.
>
>
>> Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to
>> understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a
>> specific thread for that.
>>
>> Harassment- I'd like to hear about existing policies around harassment
>> and potential changes to such policies. In particular, I'm interested
>> in how the community might tackle this problem to make the site a more
>> comfortable place for the oft-mentioned female constituent that has
>> long been in decline.
>>
>
>> Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to
>> discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the
>> thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary
>> about of time that is more than the few months that others have
>> mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this
>> discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active
>> contributor.
>>
>> Now, I'll just sit back and hear all sides of the story.
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@...>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

GorillaWarfare
> Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
> all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
> had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
> and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
> women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
> other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
> and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
> perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
> to hear about this from a female perspective.

A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where
people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that
wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an
inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at all.
But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have been
passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place for
myself and others to post.

You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention.
Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the
regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been motivating
and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being
scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also
shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree,
sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.

You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a group of
people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an
extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard admin
action but as some sort of "clean-up" after someone whom they feel I am
desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a
dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time until
now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people who
created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages mentioning
me at EncyclopediaDramatica.

So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more
in-depth "female perspective" here and now.

Yours,
Molly (GorillaWarfare)


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Wil Sinclair
Wil,

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Wil Sinclair <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Stepping in to add another aspect to both questions, as I think it
> might focus the discussion.
>
> Child Protection: Are children encouraged to use commons through any
> programs or outreach efforts of any kind?

Who are you addressing that question to?

Do you want every NGO on this list to give you a complete list of any
program that they are running which may be of concern to you?

Do you want a WMF staff member to do an audit of all Wikimedia related
programs across the world, many of which are not funded by WMF?

Who is paying to provide answers for your curiosity?

Ok, those questions are a bit rough ... but ...

If you are not expecting to be treated as anyone but your own self,
you'll need to start doing you own research:

https://www.google.co.id/search?q=Wikimedia+school+programs+-site:en.wikipedia.org
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/school
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/school

Create a list of potential problematic programs, then report them here
for serious focused discussion.

> If so, is it morally and/or
> ethically justifiable to do so without protecting children in every
> way possible?

Why ask this question when you dont have answers to the previous question.
See next section for more on this question.

> Can that be done without removing graphic pics from
> commons?

If you have read the following, then you know the answer to that.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming

In which case, in my mind at least, the question is why havent we
implemented some of the simple improvements needed to reduce exposure
to the most controversial content.
This is a complex issue, and hasnt been solved in over ten years, so
dont expect that a few quick short emails with interesting questions
is going to crack this nut.  It requires hard work.

Please ask your questions, and add your insights, on that meta page,
or come to the 'user talk' pages of people who have been active in
that meta discussion.  Get to know the main players - you'll be
talking with them regularly for at least year about this issue, I
hope, if you want to see any improvements.

> Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
> all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
> had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
> and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
> women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
> other organizations?

Why ask; you know the answer to this.

> If we're not doing everything to protect women
> and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
> perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
> to hear about this from a female perspective.

"Think of the women"?

How do we do _everything_ to protect them?  That is a lot of stuff to
do?  Do they want "we" doing _everything_ to protect them?
The world over is still struggling with this.  There is consensus that
the Wikimedia movement wants to be at the forefront of that struggle,
and we are not there yet.

More appropriate questions are:

  What are the measures that Wikimedia is currently doing to ensure
female-friendly environments.

  What are the measures that other organisations are doing to ensure
female-friendly environments, which Wikimedia should be considering.

  Are there commonly accepted best practices which the Wikimedia
movement hasnt implemented; if so, what is blocking progress.

I suggest you look at
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Learning_patterns

And ask any follow up questions you have *on meta* - not here.

Wil, it is great you are getting a crash course in the wiki world.  It
isnt good that it is happening on wikimedia-l, where the entire
'movement' must watch your every bump and bingle.  You can do it all
in public, on the meta project.  That way, only the people who want to
help or hinder you need participate in that crash course spectacle.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

MZMcBride-2
I just want to chime in here that I really enjoyed reading Molly and
John's recent posts in this thread. Simply fantastic posts.

I also loved posts from Thomas, Erik, and Milos in other threads from
the past day. I think this month of wikimedia-l has made me more
appreciative of some of the wonderful people in the Wikimedia movement and
I'm grateful for that.

And for anyone feeling discouraged about where we are right now, you need
only consult <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/> for
memories of bumpy times past that ultimately turned out pretty great. (I
got curious the other evening... check out June 2007 for Florence's
announcement of Sue's arrival to the Wikimedia Foundation and November
2007 and December 2007 for her transition to Executive Director. It's
pretty good reading and it made me feel a bit better.)

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Risker
In reply to this post by GorillaWarfare
On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
> > all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
> > had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
> > and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
> > women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
> > other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
> > and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
> > perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
> > to hear about this from a female perspective.
>
> A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where
> people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that
> wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an
> inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at all.
> But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have been
> passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place for
> myself and others to post.
>
> You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention.
> Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the
> regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been motivating
> and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being
> scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also
> shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree,
> sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.
>
> You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a group
> of
> people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an
> extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard
> admin
> action but as some sort of "clean-up" after someone whom they feel I am
> desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a
> dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time until
> now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people who
> created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages mentioning
> me at EncyclopediaDramatica.
>
> So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more
> in-depth "female perspective" here and now.
>
> Yours,
> Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>
>

I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil.  I'm a woman who has held
positions that have attracted abuse and harassment  (directed both at me
and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I have
ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.

You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a
Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that
s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that was
left on a talk page.  Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never
edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And
yet, you could not leave it alone.  It was all about you, and how you were
done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history
of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English Wikipedia
(and other places) was treated.  (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to
telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn away
from IRC.)

So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes rather
than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created
that unsafe setting.  Several community members tried to draw you away from
continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be deterred.
Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively
participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of
behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women.

I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your
unwillingness to modify your behaviour or even try to work with the
Wikimedia community.  But today, you went too far.

Risker
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Wil Sinclair
What???

What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
unsafe environment?

Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.

*No wonder people are afraid to post here!*

,Wil



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> > Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
>> > all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
>> > had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
>> > and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
>> > women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
>> > other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
>> > and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
>> > perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
>> > to hear about this from a female perspective.
>>
>> A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where
>> people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that
>> wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an
>> inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at all.
>> But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have been
>> passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place for
>> myself and others to post.
>>
>> You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention.
>> Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the
>> regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been motivating
>> and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being
>> scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also
>> shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree,
>> sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.
>>
>> You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a group
>> of
>> people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an
>> extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard
>> admin
>> action but as some sort of "clean-up" after someone whom they feel I am
>> desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a
>> dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time until
>> now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people who
>> created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages mentioning
>> me at EncyclopediaDramatica.
>>
>> So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more
>> in-depth "female perspective" here and now.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>>
>>
>
> I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil.  I'm a woman who has held
> positions that have attracted abuse and harassment  (directed both at me
> and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I have
> ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.
>
> You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a
> Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that
> s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that was
> left on a talk page.  Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never
> edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And
> yet, you could not leave it alone.  It was all about you, and how you were
> done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history
> of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English Wikipedia
> (and other places) was treated.  (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to
> telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn away
> from IRC.)
>
> So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes rather
> than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created
> that unsafe setting.  Several community members tried to draw you away from
> continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be deterred.
> Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively
> participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of
> behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women.
>
> I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your
> unwillingness to modify your behaviour or even try to work with the
> Wikimedia community.  But today, you went too far.
>
> Risker
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
Wil:

Please take this particular aspect of the discussion offline without
further postings about it.

There are entirely legitimate reasons for my request and for the
expressions of concern from others that have come through in the past
couple of hours.  This request is not an attempt to stifle any form of
Wikipedia/Wikimedia criticism nor your becoming more familiar with the
projects and their communities.

Newyorkbrad/IBM


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Wil Sinclair <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What???
>
> What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
> unsafe environment?
>
> Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
>
> *No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
>
> ,Wil
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> > Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
> >> > all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
> >> > had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
> >> > and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
> >> > women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
> >> > other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
> >> > and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
> >> > perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
> >> > to hear about this from a female perspective.
> >>
> >> A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where
> >> people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that
> >> wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an
> >> inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at
> all.
> >> But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have
> been
> >> passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place
> for
> >> myself and others to post.
> >>
> >> You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention.
> >> Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the
> >> regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been
> motivating
> >> and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being
> >> scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also
> >> shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree,
> >> sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.
> >>
> >> You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a
> group
> >> of
> >> people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an
> >> extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard
> >> admin
> >> action but as some sort of "clean-up" after someone whom they feel I am
> >> desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a
> >> dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time
> until
> >> now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people
> who
> >> created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages
> mentioning
> >> me at EncyclopediaDramatica.
> >>
> >> So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more
> >> in-depth "female perspective" here and now.
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >> Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil.  I'm a woman who has held
> > positions that have attracted abuse and harassment  (directed both at me
> > and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I
> have
> > ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.
> >
> > You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a
> > Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that
> > s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that
> was
> > left on a talk page.  Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never
> > edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And
> > yet, you could not leave it alone.  It was all about you, and how you
> were
> > done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history
> > of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English
> Wikipedia
> > (and other places) was treated.  (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to
> > telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn
> away
> > from IRC.)
> >
> > So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes
> rather
> > than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created
> > that unsafe setting.  Several community members tried to draw you away
> from
> > continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be
> deterred.
> > Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively
> > participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of
> > behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women.
> >
> > I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your
> > unwillingness to modify your behaviour or even try to work with the
> > Wikimedia community.  But today, you went too far.
> >
> > Risker
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Wil Sinclair
Why did you mail this to the public mailing list? It seems to be a
private communication.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Newyorkbrad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wil:
>
> Please take this particular aspect of the discussion offline without
> further postings about it.
>
> There are entirely legitimate reasons for my request and for the
> expressions of concern from others that have come through in the past
> couple of hours.  This request is not an attempt to stifle any form of
> Wikipedia/Wikimedia criticism nor your becoming more familiar with the
> projects and their communities.
>
> Newyorkbrad/IBM
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Wil Sinclair <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> What???
>>
>> What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
>> unsafe environment?
>>
>> Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
>>
>> *No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
>> >> > all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
>> >> > had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
>> >> > and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
>> >> > women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
>> >> > other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
>> >> > and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
>> >> > perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
>> >> > to hear about this from a female perspective.
>> >>
>> >> A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where
>> >> people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that
>> >> wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an
>> >> inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at
>> all.
>> >> But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have
>> been
>> >> passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place
>> for
>> >> myself and others to post.
>> >>
>> >> You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention.
>> >> Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the
>> >> regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been
>> motivating
>> >> and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being
>> >> scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also
>> >> shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree,
>> >> sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.
>> >>
>> >> You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a
>> group
>> >> of
>> >> people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an
>> >> extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard
>> >> admin
>> >> action but as some sort of "clean-up" after someone whom they feel I am
>> >> desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a
>> >> dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time
>> until
>> >> now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people
>> who
>> >> created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages
>> mentioning
>> >> me at EncyclopediaDramatica.
>> >>
>> >> So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more
>> >> in-depth "female perspective" here and now.
>> >>
>> >> Yours,
>> >> Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil.  I'm a woman who has held
>> > positions that have attracted abuse and harassment  (directed both at me
>> > and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I
>> have
>> > ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.
>> >
>> > You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a
>> > Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that
>> > s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that
>> was
>> > left on a talk page.  Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never
>> > edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And
>> > yet, you could not leave it alone.  It was all about you, and how you
>> were
>> > done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history
>> > of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English
>> Wikipedia
>> > (and other places) was treated.  (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to
>> > telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn
>> away
>> > from IRC.)
>> >
>> > So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes
>> rather
>> > than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created
>> > that unsafe setting.  Several community members tried to draw you away
>> from
>> > continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be
>> deterred.
>> > Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively
>> > participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of
>> > behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women.
>> >
>> > I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your
>> > unwillingness to modify your behaviour or even try to work with the
>> > Wikimedia community.  But today, you went too far.
>> >
>> > Risker
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Chad Horohoe
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I just want to chime in here that I really enjoyed reading Molly and
> John's recent posts in this thread. Simply fantastic posts.
>
> I also loved posts from Thomas, Erik, and Milos in other threads from
> the past day. I think this month of wikimedia-l has made me more
> appreciative of some of the wonderful people in the Wikimedia movement and
> I'm grateful for that.
>
>
This.


> And for anyone feeling discouraged about where we are right now, you need
> only consult <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/> for
> memories of bumpy times past that ultimately turned out pretty great. (I
> got curious the other evening... check out June 2007 for Florence's
> announcement of Sue's arrival to the Wikimedia Foundation and November
> 2007 and December 2007 for her transition to Executive Director. It's
> pretty good reading and it made me feel a bit better.)
>
>
2007 was...oh man.

I was such an immature asshat. How the heck did I never get banned?

-Chad
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Philippe Beaudette-3
*Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  [hidden email]  |  :
@Philippewiki<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki>


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Chad Horohoe <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I just want to chime in here that I really enjoyed reading Molly and
> > John's recent posts in this thread. Simply fantastic posts.
> >
> > I also loved posts from Thomas, Erik, and Milos in other threads from
> > the past day. I think this month of wikimedia-l has made me more
> > appreciative of some of the wonderful people in the Wikimedia movement
> and
> > I'm grateful for that.
> >
> >
> This.
>
>

Yep.


>
> > And for anyone feeling discouraged about where we are right now, you need
> > only consult <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/> for
> > memories of bumpy times past that ultimately turned out pretty great. (I
> > got curious the other evening... check out June 2007 for Florence's
> > announcement of Sue's arrival to the Wikimedia Foundation and November
> > 2007 and December 2007 for her transition to Executive Director. It's
> > pretty good reading and it made me feel a bit better.)
> >
> >
> 2007 was...oh man.
>
> I was such an immature asshat. How the heck did I never get banned?
>

What surprises me is how many of the names on the June 2007 archive are
people we still hear from.  Here's to old-timers.  :)

pb
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

GorillaWarfare
In reply to this post by Wil Sinclair
Wil Sinclair <wllm@...> writes:

>
> What???
>
> What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
> unsafe environment?

I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted.
 
> Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
>
> *No wonder people are afraid to post here!*

I've made my point, and I'm more or less done talking about this on-list,
probably for similar reasons as NYB. Feel free to contact me off-list if you
wish.

Yours,
Molly (GorillaWarfare)


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Wil Sinclair
Ah. You mean the edit that I didn't write, I didn't post to IRC, and
I've never actually seen.

Got it.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Molly White
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wil Sinclair <wllm@...> writes:
>
>>
>> What???
>>
>> What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
>> unsafe environment?
>
> I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted.
>
>> Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
>>
>> *No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
>
> I've made my point, and I'm more or less done talking about this on-list,
> probably for similar reasons as NYB. Feel free to contact me off-list if you
> wish.
>
> Yours,
> Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12