[Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

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

[Wikimedia-l] Trust & Safety (was: New board for...)

Effe iets anders
(forking the discussion to allow a focus on more general line, rather than
the specifics of who wrote what, why and when)
My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is a
neutral review option for actions by the T&S team (or the WMF in general),
such as an ombudsperson.

A detailed discussion or evaluation of specific sanctions by the Trust and
Safety team is not the kind of conversation to have publicly - I think most
people agree on this. In conversations like this, there is always at least
one party less comfortable to discuss the matter in public (or even discuss
it at all, indeed).

At the same time, if actions are so severe, it's good if there is
opportunity to have a review of the actions taken by a third party, to
confirm to the person against who sanctions have been laid (or complainants
in case no sanctions were laid), that appropriate processes were followed.

(This is perhaps stating the obvious - and I should acknowledge that I
don't know enough about WMF processes today to know for sure whether this
has maybe already even been implemented in the WMF structures a long time
ago. I do get the impression though that if this is the case, not everyone
is familiar with this option.)

Best,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Isaac Olatunde <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> <snip>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 3:48 PM Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email] wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Trust & Safety (was: New board for...)

Ciell Wikipedia
Hi Lodewijk,

You say:


*"My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is
a neutral review option for actions by the T&S team (or the WMF in
general), such as an ombudsperson."*

I think this is a very good idea, last Saturday we talked about an internal
audit for this, same idea I think.
I know of several instances where the T&S team had to act/ was asked to
act, and reviewing procedures from time to time should be a normal  in a
healthy organisation.

Vriendelijke groet,
Ciell


Op di 18 jun. 2019 om 03:02 schreef effe iets anders <
[hidden email]>:

> (forking the discussion to allow a focus on more general line, rather than
> the specifics of who wrote what, why and when)
> My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is a
> neutral review option for actions by the T&S team (or the WMF in general),
> such as an ombudsperson.
>
> A detailed discussion or evaluation of specific sanctions by the Trust and
> Safety team is not the kind of conversation to have publicly - I think most
> people agree on this. In conversations like this, there is always at least
> one party less comfortable to discuss the matter in public (or even discuss
> it at all, indeed).
>
> At the same time, if actions are so severe, it's good if there is
> opportunity to have a review of the actions taken by a third party, to
> confirm to the person against who sanctions have been laid (or complainants
> in case no sanctions were laid), that appropriate processes were followed.
>
> (This is perhaps stating the obvious - and I should acknowledge that I
> don't know enough about WMF processes today to know for sure whether this
> has maybe already even been implemented in the WMF structures a long time
> ago. I do get the impression though that if this is the case, not everyone
> is familiar with this option.)
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Isaac Olatunde <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 3:48 PM Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]
> wrote:
> >
> > ><snip>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12