Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Research Fund/Codifying Digital Behavior Around the World: A Socio-Legal Study of the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct
 | This is a funded Wikimedia Research Fund application. Review the full proposal. |
Overview
[edit]Applicant(s)
- Florian Grisel and Giovanni De Gregorio
Affiliation or grant type
- University of Oxford; Universidade Católica Portuguesa
Author(s)
- Florian Grisel and Giovanni De Gregorio
Wikimedia username(s)
- Florian Grisel - Wikimedia username: FlorianGrisel
Giovanni De Gregorio - Wikimedia username: GDeGregorio
Project title
- Codifying Digital Behavior Around the World: A Socio-Legal Study of the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct
Research proposal
[edit]Description
[edit]Description of the proposed project, including aims and approach. Be sure to clearly state the problem, why it is important, why previous approaches (if any) have been insufficient, and your methods to address it.
The spread of harmful behaviour such as hate speech and misinformation online has raised questions concerning the online protection of user rights and community values. These challenges have led online providers and networks to produce standards and rules on which they can rely when regulating conduct that could affect the values of their communities.
The emergence of the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct (the “UCoC”) is a significant development in this regard. The UCoC seeks to “provide a universal baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement without tolerance for harassment.”[1] This set of guidelines is “being developed in consultation with the Wikimedia community with respect to context, existing local policies, as well as enforcement and conflict resolution structures”.[2]
The proposed project aims to examine the codification process of the UCoC and its enforcement guidelines. By examining this codification process, we hope to explore two key questions. The first question is to examine how the drafters of the UCoC identify universal values across Wikimedia projects, despite significant differences among these projects. The second question is to understand how the inclusive values of the UCoC interact with the existing “enforcement and conflict resolution structures” of the Wikimedia projects, which are often criticized for being non-inclusive.[3]
We will gather empirical data to address the research questions of this project. Firstly, the research team will conduct a series of interviews with the members of the UCoC drafting committees, revisions committee and coordinating committee. Secondly, the team will track the ongoing discussions of the Wikimedia communities relating to the codification of the UCoC such as in content and discussion pages, as well as in email lists.
By looking into the debates that led to the formulation of the UCoC and its enforcement guidelines, we hope to identify salient points in the resistance/acceptance of the UCoC on Wikimedia. This research will be a pilot study leading to a broader project on the interpretation and application of the UCoC across different Wikimedia projects and spaces.
[1] See <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_%20Code_of_Conduct&oldid=20931352> (last checked Dec 5, 2022, emphasis added).
[2] Ibid. (last checked Dec 5, 2022, emphasis added).
[3] See, eg, Zachary McDowell & Matthew A. Vetter, Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality, Routledge, 2021.
Personnel
[edit]N/A
Budget
[edit]Approximate amount requested in USD.
- 49,402.77 USD
Budget Description
Briefly describe what you expect to spend money on (specific budgets and details are not necessary at this time).
This budget covers (i) 0.15FTE of each applicant’s time for 9 months, (ii) recruiting a research assistant for 0.2FTE for 9 months to support the applicants in the data collection (interviews and collection of archival data concerning the codification process of UCoC) and to document progress of the project on MetaWiki:Research, (iii) transcription services for 25 interviews, (iv) costs relating to travel and subsistence for the applicants to participate in Wikimania 2024, and (v) 15% overheads.
Impact
[edit]Address the impact and relevance to the Wikimedia projects, including the degree to which the research will address the 2030 Wikimedia Strategic Direction and/or support the work of Wikimedia user groups, affiliates, and developer communities. If your work relates to knowledge gaps, please directly relate it to the knowledge gaps taxonomy.
The project will help understand the ways in which Wikimedia communities are coping with and monitoring harmful behavior and harassment. The UCoC is the most significant and recent development in these ongoing efforts. In this context, documenting the ways in which the UCoC and its enforcement guidelines are codified will contribute to the 2030 Wikimedia Strategic Direction (from which the UCoC is derived) of “creat[ing] a culture of hospitality where contributing is enjoyable and rewarding.” This research will support the enforcement process of the UCoC in ways that are compatible with the diversity of values of the Wikimedia projects, particularly by examining the articulation of the UCoC with Wikimedia’s governance structures.
Dissemination
[edit]Plans for dissemination.
The project will take place from September 2023 until May 2024. At the end of the 9-month period, we will issue a report (around 5,000 words) that will be advertised for comments on MetaWiki:Research. We will subsequently work on a scientific paper (around 10,000-15,000 words) that will be submitted to an international journal of socio-legal studies. Besides, research outcomes will be documented every month on the project page on MetaWiki:Research, and will be presented at Wikimania 2024.
Past Contributions
[edit]Prior contributions to related academic and/or research projects and/or the Wikimedia and free culture communities. If you do not have prior experience, please explain your planned contributions.
The project combines the expertise and disciplinary traditions of two scholars based in different institutions. Florian Grisel is a socio-legal scholar based at the University of Oxford whose recent work explores the functioning of the Arbitration Committee and the place of law on English Wikipedia based on interviews and quantitative data. He was a member of Facebook’s Data Transparency Advisory Group in 2018/2019. Giovanni De Gregorio is a constitutional and digital law scholar based at Católica Global School of Law in Lisbon who authored the monograph Digital Constitutionalism in Europe: Reframing Rights and Powers in the Algorithmic Society (CUP 2022) and numerous influential articles in the field of digital governance.
First Research Report
[edit]Progress to date
Empirical data: we started interviewing participants in September 2023 and, to date, we conducted 8 interviews in total. We are expecting to interview additional participants over the winter break (December 2023-January 2024) and are well underway to reach Milestone 1 on time.
Transcription: we subscribed to an AI transcription software called Otter.ai, and we are exploring various options for the interviews that we conducted in French. Team: we recruited our bilingual research assistant during the summer to avoid any delays due to internal hiring procedures at the University of Oxford. She started her transcription / translation work on September 1st, 2023. To date, she has transcribed 5 out of the 8 interviews we conducted between June and October 2023. We are well underway to reach Milestone 2 on time.
Deliverable: in light of our current progress and of this first interim report, we feel confident that we will be able to deliver the second interim report as well as the final report on time.
Preliminary findings
During the first phase of this project, we have gathered useful information concerning the codification of the UCoC and its enforcement guidelines. We have been able to interview several stakeholders who were involved in this codification process. We have also started interviewing French Wikipedia editors, who have given interesting insights into the ways in which the UCoC is accepted in this community. We are hoping to review the transcripts of the first interviewees in the coming weeks in order to identify general themes that we will further analyse in subsequent interviews.
Expected output
Milestone 1: Gather a critical mass of empirical data (25 interviews in two languages and content analysis of multiple Wikipedia pages, between September 2023 and May 2024).
Milestone 2: Finalize the transcripts of 25 interviews (between September 2023 and May 2024).
Deliverable: Issue two interim reports (in November 2023 and February 2024) and a final report (in May 2024).
Second Research Report
[edit]Progress to date
Empirical data we started interviewing participants in September 2023 and, to date, we conducted more than 20 interviews in total. We are expecting to interview additional participants over the Easter break (March-April 2024) and are well underway to reach Milestone 1 on time.
Transcription we subscribed to an AI transcription software called Otter.ai, and resorted to human transcription for the interviews that we have conducted in French, depending on the quality of the recording.
Team our bilingual research assistant started her transcription / translation work on September 1st, 2023. To date, she has transcribed the interviews we conducted between June 2023 and January 2024. We are well underway to reach Milestone 2 on time.
Deliverable 1 in light of our current progress and of this first interim report, we feel confident that we will be able to deliver the final report on time.
Preliminary findings
As mentioned earlier, we are conducting interviews with members of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) drafting committees and various Wikipedia communities. Our goal is to gather a range of opinions on how the UCoC is created and enforced. We are giving special attention to the impact of the UCoC on the French Wikipedia to understand how it is perceived and applied within that community. Additionally, we are examining the online records of Wikipedia to study the discussions, edits, and decisions made during the UCoC drafting process.
Our research will result in a report for the Wikimedia Foundation and an article to be presented at conferences. For instance, we are planning to attend Wikimania in Krakow in August 2024, and the Law and Society Association Annual Meetings in Chicago in May 2025.
We have observed two main groups, which we cast as the "traditionalists" and the "modernists." Traditionalists, mostly educated men with conservative views, tend to be skeptical of the UCoC. They highly value the freedom and autonomy they see in Wikipedia. In contrast, modernists, often women advocating for gender equality, view the UCoC as a means to address issues that can arise from unchecked freedom.
Regardless of their group affiliation, we've noticed that both groups are starting to reference the UCoC rules in their interactions. This suggests an evolving trend towards a “legalization” of Wikipedia and a growing collective awareness of these rules, irrespective of individuals' affiliations.
Final Report
[edit]Background
This research project examines the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) as a pivotal development in governing online behavior across Wikimedia projects. Led by a research team from the University of Oxford and Universidade Católica Portuguesa, the study analyzes the codification process of the UCoC, with a focus on its origins, structure, and the narratives guiding its enforcement. Using empirical data collected through interviews and document analysis, the project explores the dynamics surrounding the UCoC’s adoption and ongoing debates about its enforcement. Findings from this research have been shared through conferences and reports and will culminate in an open-access paper published in an international journal.
Our methodology is empirical and inductive, avoiding pre-established theoretical frameworks before data collection to allow the voices of those directly engaged with the UCoC to emerge authentically. We prioritized gathering firsthand insights from key stakeholders to inform theoretical analysis of user experiences.
1. Interviews: We conducted semi-structured interviews with UCoC drafting committee members, administrators, editors, and arbitration committee members from two Wikipedia language editions (English and French). These editions were selected based on (i) their status as the first and fifth largest Wikipedias, enhancing the generalizability of our findings; (ii) their cultural diversity, allowing for comparative analysis of responses to the UCoC; and (iii) their potential to expand the research into underrepresented regions, such as Africa, in future phases.
2. Content Analysis: We are monitoring ongoing discussions within Wikimedia communities related to the UCoC’s codification and enforcement. This includes content and discussion pages, as well as email lists. By coding key terms and discussion points, we aim to understand how Wikipedians interpret and discuss the codification efforts initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Our data collection included 30 interviews with 28 participants, comprising: 8 members of the Phase 1 Committee, 6 members of the Phase 2 Committee, 8 members of the Revisions Committee, 7 members of the Wikimedia Foundation, 3 members of various Arbitration Committees, 7 members of the French Wikipedia community, and 2 individuals with other roles, such as editors.
Areas of Research
In drafting the UCoC, the Phase 1 Drafting Committee—responsible for creating the initial text—was composed of five volunteers (following the resignation of a sixth) and four Wikimedia Foundation staff members. This drafting process began on July 29, 2020, and concluded on September 23, 2020. Prior to this, the Wikimedia Foundation conducted policy research and consulted with various Wikipedia communities to gather data and insights for Phase 1.
The Phase 1 Drafting Committee’s mandate included reviewing existing codes of conduct, outlining the core values and standards of the Wikipedia community, and drafting a Code of Conduct applicable across all Wikipedia spaces. Throughout this process, the Committee sought and received feedback from Wikipedia communities, conducting consultations both during the drafting and after publishing an initial draft for community review. The Committee then revised the text based on this feedback before submitting the final version to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees, which ultimately adopted the UCoC.
Interviews conducted for this research reveal that the community did not have the opportunity to vote on the UCoC itself—a point of contention that led members of various ArbComs to issue an open letter to the Board in March/April 2021, calling for community ratification. Although the Board did not put the UCoC text to a community vote, it agreed that the enforcement guidelines would be subject to community ratification.
In the preamble, the drafters of the UCoC describe it as a “minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behavior,” applicable to “everyone who interacts and contributes to online and offline Wikimedia projects and spaces.” They note that “communities may add to this to develop policies that take account of local and cultural context, while maintaining the criteria listed here as a minimum standard.”
The Code is structured into two sections: Expected Behavior and Unacceptable Behavior. In the first section, Expected Behavior, the UCoC emphasizes principles of mutual respect, civility, collegiality, mutual support, and good citizenship. Examples include respecting how contributors choose to name and describe themselves. The second section, Unacceptable Behavior, condemns harassment, as well as abuse of power, privilege, or influence, and includes measures against content vandalism and other forms of abuse across Wikimedia projects.
Phase 2 was dedicated to drafting the UCoC enforcement guidelines. Prior to the beginning of this Phase, in 2021, consultations were conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation (both locally and on Wikipedia). The Phase 2 Drafting Committee started its work on 29 April 2021 until 24 January 2022, when the enforcement guidelines were published. It was composed of 11 volunteers and 4 Wikimedia Foundation employees. In March 2022, the community voted on the enforcement guidelines, and 56,98% of the approximately 2,300 voters supported the enforcement guidelines. Although the Foundation’s Board of Trustees could have moved forward with the ratification, it decided – in light of the comments submitted by Wikipedians – to revise the enforcement guidelines and integrate the feedback provided by volunteers. A Phase 2 Revisions Committee (composed of 8 volunteers and 2 staff members) started its work in May 2022, which it completed in November 2022. A new vote was held in January 2023, with 76% of the voters supported the revised enforcement guidelines (over a total of almost 3,100 voters), and the text was subsequently adopted.
The enforcement guidelines aim “to create the groundwork for an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC.” The UCoC applies to “all online and offline Wikimedia spaces” and “should be enforced at the most relevant local level possible.”
The enforcement guidelines are organized into three sections: Preventive Work, Responsive Work, and U4C. 1. Preventive Work: This section provides guidelines for training UCoC enforcers, notifying users about the UCoC, and ensuring that “advanced rights holders” confirm their adherence to the UCoC. 2. Responsive Work: This section outlines principles for handling reports, recommending a reporting tool and providing suggested enforcement actions for various levels of UCoC violations. It also includes recommendations for local enforcement structures. 3. U4C: The final section defines the purpose and scope of the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C), detailing member selection, roles, procedures, policies, and precedents. It also describes the function of the U4C Building Committee, which supports the U4C's development and operationalization.
Our interviews identified three key forces that likely influenced the UCoC codification process: the Fram case, challenges within smaller Wikipedia projects, and shifts in the regulatory landscape.
The Fram Case A potential catalyst for the UCoC’s creation was the Fram case. In 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation issued a one-year ban to a long-time administrator, Fram, due to uncivil conduct. This decision sparked protests within the English Wikipedia community, particularly among administrators, who opposed the Foundation’s intervention. Many speculate that the Foundation initiated the UCoC codification process to establish a framework for handling similar conflicts in the future. Relatedly, some interviewees suggested that the Foundation saw the UCoC as a necessary step to protect newcomers and foster a more welcoming environment, thereby supporting Wikipedia’s long-term sustainability. ‘Truly, Fram is what causes the UCoC. […] part of the issue with Fram was that […] there was no one who was willing to sanction Fram. And the reasons why, for that, are very complex. But essentially, by creating a Universal Code, then it provides an opportunity for someone, other than a community that is unwilling to enforce it against a given Member, to then step in and enforce it.’ – Interview 4
Turmoil in small Wikipedia projects Another argument raised is that the UCoC aims to prevent small Wikipedia projects from falling under the control of a few malevolent actors. A prominent example is the Croatian Wikipedia, which was taken over by radical right-wing, ultra-conservative populists—individuals who were “real-life friends, ideological sympathizers, or political allies.” These actors exploited community mechanisms, leading many editors to leave the project and promoting disinformation and content distortion to align with their political views. Following an investigation in 2021, some of these individuals were globally banned and stripped of their administrative privileges. Many believe that cases like this were significant factors in prompting the Wikimedia Foundation to initiate the UCoC codification process. ‘[Wikipedia] is something that is so bottom-up, such that only local projects have any sovereignty over themselves, [which] is incredibly disruptive to the movement. And this is a hole into our mission and vision. Look at the Croatian Wikipedia as a great example, look at the Scots Wikipedia, look at the Azeri Wikipedia, which is an ongoing problem.’ – Interview 12
Change in the regulatory landscape Finally, interviewees mentioned the incoming European Digital Services Act, which came into force in February 2024, as a reason for the introduction of the UCoC. ‘They were more or less obliged, in any case, to do a Code; they had to do one for Europe, so they told themselves: ‘why not do the same for everyone’.’ – Interview 10
As one could expect, the codification of the UCoC and its Enforcement Guidelines sparked many controversies, which broadly fell into two main categories: the codification process itself, and the content of the codification.
The Process One of the main controversies surrounding the UCoC process is that it was initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation in a top-down fashion, contrasting with Wikipedia's traditionally decentralized, bottom-up governance model, where authority generally stems from its diverse communities. Some editors perceive the UCoC as a potential power grab by the Foundation, viewing it as an unwelcome interference with established, community-driven processes that are already functioning effectively.
‘[The UCoC process] is quite a departure from the Wikimedia model of the past. […]. One technique would be, start a page on Meta Wiki on open page and just let everyone edit. Just let people build it from scratch. And that was attractive in a lot of ways, because that is, you know, a lot of how a lot of Wikimedia content is built.
Unfortunately, again, you go back to the first problem, who’s going to dominate the editing there, who’s going to be inclined to edit there? […] And so we decided to go for a more structured concept, and this was to have a Drafting Committee who would make the initial first draft. And this is controversial in itself because that opens up a lot of questions. […]’ – Interview 3
‘The Foundation is walking on eggshells. You cannot impose things from the top down, especially to a community that is self-governed. So how does one solve the problem of having a binding code, which has legislative value, and a community that can carry it, that is not allergic to it but makes it its own.’ – Interview 10
In our interviews with members from various Wikipedia communities, some interviewees raised concerns about the legitimacy of the UCoC process, particularly questioning the composition of the Drafting Committees. For instance, some interviewees doubted whether the appointed Wikipedians truly represented their local communities, as they were not elected but appointed by the Foundation.
‘So we decided that we would do the selection ourselves. And that was a controversial step. […] However, we did put a lot of work into it, recruiting folks who had policy writing experience, who brought a really good wide set of experiences. So people who could represent some of these small communities, people who could represent groups that had seen higher levels of harassment than the main communities. But we also, of course, needed to have representatives from our large Wikis to make sure there is some harmony in how this policy is written with some of the local policies.’ – Interview 3
Others were less focused on the final committee composition and more critical of the applicant pool itself, arguing that the same individuals tend to apply for every available ‘political’ role, resulting in a pool that lacks genuine diversity from the outset.
The Content During the codification process, in Phase 1, there were debates about which values could be considered universal across various Wikipedia communities. One point of contention was the inclusion and interpretation of the term “race.” Some contributors were reluctant to include the term, viewing it as potentially discriminatory. Conversely, others argued that omitting references to racial discrimination would itself be discriminatory, emphasizing the need to acknowledge and address such issues explicitly.
‘[…] There was the challenge of identifying values that were universal. Like, when you talk about race, what does it mean to different people?’ – Interview 6
‘[…] at another point where we had a lot of discussion was the word ‘race’ […] And I said to myself, ‘I don’t want this word in the Code of Conduct, because in no ethical code in [name of country], even in university ethical codes, you don’t see the word race in Europe, because nobody accepts that there are different races.’ – Interview 1
Debates within the French Wikipedia community continued even after the UCoC was enacted. The initial response from French Wikipedians was to meticulously compare the UCoC’s provisions with their own set of “rules and recommendations,” aiming to identify any provisions that were either absent or contradictory. One interviewee estimated that 95% of the UCoC’s guidelines were already observed within the French Wikipedia community. While all interviewees expressed agreement in principle with the UCoC’s values, and acknowledged that most of its provisions were already reflected in their local rules, some still voiced clear intentions to disregard the UCoC moving forward. The reasons cited included a lack of community endorsement, with the UCoC perceived as unrepresentative due to its top-down imposition, as well as concerns over practicality and cultural relevance to their community.
‘On the one hand, there is a group that identifies itself as being inclusive and progressive, which the others call ‘woke.’ And on the other hand, there is another group that presents itself as universalist, rationalist, and that the first group calls ‘reactionary’ or ‘fascist.’ […] The inclusive group is very much in favour of the UCoC, which it considers as a method that will protect them against what they call aggressions. […] The others are much more reluctant, because in their own words it is an Anglo-Saxon fantasy that we do not need.’ – Interview 26
The UCoC will be enforced primarily through each Wikipedia’s respective Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) or other high-level decision-making local bodies. Only in cases where there is a systemic failure or no effective local governance will enforcement escalate to the U4C, i.e., the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee. This was referred to as the principle of “subsidiarity” during the codification process:
‘Halfway through the Revisions Committee, one of the Committee members brought up the concept of subsidiarity [which is] the idea that the smallest, most local body should handle issues, unless it is beyond their capability, at which point then it escalates. But if a smaller, more regional, more local body can handle, it should.’ – Interview 19
The U4C is defined in the enforcement guidelines as ‘a co-equal body with other high-level decision-making bodies (e.g. ArbComs and AffCom). Its purpose is to serve as final recourse in the case of systemic failures by local groups to enforce the UCoC. The U4C’s membership is intended to reflect the global and diverse makeup of [the Wikipedia] global community.’
During Phase 3 (which lasted from June 2023 to August 2023), the U4C Building Committee developed the U4C Charter, which ‘outlines the policies, procedures and processes that will guide the U4C’s work.’ A Draft Charter consultation was then held from August to September 2023, and a vote (among eligible voters) to ratify the U4C Charter was open from 19 January until 2 February 2024. In the end, 1,746 voted, and among them, 1,249 (74,84%) ratified the Charter, 420 did not, and 69 abstained (further information about the results of the vote is available here).
The final U4C Charter is drafted as follows: (1) purpose and scope; (2) elections and terms; (3) internal procedures; (4) tasks; (5) glossary. Importantly, the Charter emphasises that, except in instances of systemic failure, the U4C will not have jurisdiction if there is already a high-level decision-making body that exists and warrants effective self-governance (such as stewards or ArbComs). Indeed, the U4C is expected to respect the Movement’s principle of decentralization, whereby the UCoC should be enforced at the most relevant local level possible. Additionally, the U4C will not take cases that do not primarily involve violations of the UCoC or its enforcement. The main tasks of the U4C are to provide equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC, by addressing local projects’ systemic failures; by monitoring and providing quality UCoC training; and by overseeing the annual review of the UCoC.
Following this, the first elections of the U4C were announced on 5 March 2024, candidates were invited to answer community questions in April 2024, and the vote was held from 25 April 2024 to 9 May 2024. The results were announced in May 2024. According to Chapter 2 of the U4C Charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: 8 community-at-large seats and 8 regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement. No more than two members of the U4C can be elected from the same Wikipedia. Apart from the first election, where community-at-large elected members would serve for only one year, U4C membership will last 2 years. After the vote, 5 regional seats and 4 community-at-large seats were still vacant, with Ghilt (Northern and Western Europe), Ibrahim.ID (Middle East and North Africa), 0xDeadbeef (East, South East Asia and Pacific) elected to the regional seats, and Barkeep49, Superpes15, Civvì, and Luke081515 elected to the community-at-large seats. A community evaluation phase for the elections is currently open.
Amid these organizational changes, our interviewees report that references to the UCoC are increasingly appearing in disputes before various ArbComs (such as English and Dutch), in editor conflicts, and in decisions by administrators and stewards. In major Wikipedia projects, including the German, Dutch, Italian, and South African Wikipedias, the UCoC has been invoked both online and offline. On the English Wikipedia, interviewees noted that they had either referenced the UCoC themselves or observed it referenced in ArbCom cases and global locks. Notably, both supporters and critics of the UCoC appear to be leveraging the Code in discussions and cases. Additionally, a few interviewees mentioned observing misinterpretations of the Code or “wiki-lawyering,” which they attributed to ambiguities in certain provisions of the Code.
In the absence of an active Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) in the French Wikipedia, administrators are currently responsible for enforcing the UCoC. However, the way the Code is applied often reflects the perspectives of individual administrators. Some interviewees describe administrators as biased, applying rules selectively and, at times, even interpreting the UCoC’s provisions in ways that seem to contradict their intended meaning. This situation has led some interviewees to hope that the Code’s enactment and application, along with the enforcement guidelines, might spark renewed discussion about reactivating the French Wikipedia’s ArbCom. Conversely, other interviewees view the UCoC as largely redundant, believing that their community’s existing rules and recommendations already surpass the UCoC’s provisions.
Conclusions
The Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) represents a significant effort by the Wikimedia Foundation to create a standardized framework for promoting respectful interactions and curbing harmful behavior across all Wikimedia projects. Through a comprehensive investigation into the origins, processes, and controversies surrounding the UCoC, this research offers insights into how this Code has been shaped by both internal community dynamics and external pressures. By tracing its evolution—from the Fram case and challenges in smaller Wikipedia projects to shifts in the regulatory environment—our study illustrates the complex forces driving the UCoC’s creation and the varied reactions it has elicited from diverse Wikipedia communities.
One of the central motivations behind the UCoC was the Fram case, a 2019 incident that highlighted limitations in Wikipedia's decentralized governance model, particularly in addressing problematic behavior. Fram’s suspension by the Wikimedia Foundation, due to reported incivility, sparked significant backlash, with administrators on the English Wikipedia decrying the perceived overreach by the Foundation. Many see the UCoC as an attempt to prevent similar controversies by establishing a universally recognized standard of conduct that provides mechanisms for intervening when local governance structures are unable or unwilling to act. At the same time, our research reveals that, while the UCoC is partly intended to protect newcomers and promote inclusivity, its top-down implementation has fueled a perception among some community members that it could compromise the autonomy of established community processes.
The codification of the UCoC was also prompted by challenges observed within smaller Wikipedia projects, where limited oversight has sometimes allowed disruptive individuals to gain control. The Croatian Wikipedia, for example, was dominated by various groups who leveraged community structures to spread misinformation and create a hostile environment for other editors. Following an investigation, the Wikimedia Foundation banned several individuals involved and revoked their administrative privileges, reinforcing the need for a framework like the UCoC to prevent such occurrences. As our interviews suggest, cases like these underscored the vulnerabilities of smaller projects and heightened the perceived need for a universal set of behavioral standards to ensure Wikimedia’s mission of neutrality and reliability.
Furthermore, the changing regulatory landscape, particularly with the European Digital Services Act (DSA), has likely influenced the Foundation’s push for the UCoC. With increased regulatory scrutiny around digital platforms and content moderation, the UCoC provides Wikimedia with a mechanism to address potential legal requirements and align its policies with emerging global standards on online conduct. Interviewees noted that the UCoC may offer Wikimedia a protective measure, positioning it as a proactive player in adhering to regulatory expectations while reinforcing community integrity.
However, the UCoC and its enforcement guidelines have not been without controversy. Community members expressed concerns about both the codification process and the Code’s content. The UCoC’s development, driven by a Wikimedia Foundation-led drafting committee rather than a community-wide collaborative effort, has been a point of contention. Wikipedia’s decentralized, consensus-driven culture contrasts with the top-down approach taken with the UCoC, leading some to view it as a power shift away from community autonomy toward centralized control. Interviewees highlighted the tension between the Foundation’s attempt to address pressing issues in community governance and the importance of preserving Wikipedia’s bottom-up decision-making ethos. The question of legitimacy, especially concerning the appointment of the drafting committee members rather than their election, has fueled skepticism among some Wikipedians, who worry that this shift could undermine the community-driven spirit foundational to Wikimedia’s culture.
Content-related controversies have also surfaced, with debates focusing on the inclusion of terms and values considered by some to be culturally sensitive or contentious. The term “race,” for example, led to significant disagreements, with some contributors fearing that its inclusion could inadvertently reinforce divisions, while others argued that not acknowledging racial discrimination would be a critical omission. Such debates underscore the challenges of defining “universal” standards in a globally diverse community, where cultural perceptions vary widely.
Enforcement remains one of the most significant challenges for the UCoC. The guidelines advocate for enforcement at the most relevant local level, prioritizing subsidiarity by empowering local Arbitration Committees (ArbComs) and decision-making bodies. Only in cases of systemic failure or absence of effective local governance would the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) step in. While this approach aims to balance local autonomy with overarching accountability, our findings indicate that some community members remain skeptical. In the French Wikipedia, for example, the absence of an active ArbCom has placed enforcement responsibilities on administrators, leading to concerns about selective application of the Code and potential biases. In contrast, some members view the UCoC as redundant, believing that their community’s rules already exceed the UCoC’s standards.
The U4C’s establishment marks a new chapter in Wikimedia governance, introducing a decision-making body intended to support community efforts while providing a final recourse for unresolved cases. However, with the U4C still in its early stages and its first elections recently concluded, the extent of its influence and acceptance by the community remains to be seen. While some Wikipedians view it as a necessary step for addressing systemic issues, others question its potential to maintain the collaborative, community-driven ethos of the Wikimedia movement.
In conclusion, the UCoC represents both a practical and symbolic shift in Wikimedia’s approach to governance and community dynamics. While it aims to address specific issues of behavior and governance gaps, it also reflects broader changes in the digital regulatory landscape and Wikimedia’s evolving relationship with its communities. The UCoC’s effectiveness will ultimately depend on how well it balances these multiple objectives: enforcing behavioral standards, respecting community autonomy, and adapting to a diverse global community. As this project has shown, the path to universally accepted governance within such a decentralized movement is complex, requiring ongoing dialogue, adaptation, and perhaps most importantly, trust between the Wikimedia Foundation and its communities. Only by addressing these challenges can the UCoC fulfill its intended role as a unifying framework for ensuring Wikimedia’s long-term success as a safe, inclusive, and collaborative platform.
I agree to license the information I entered in this form excluding the pronouns, countries of residence, and email addresses under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0. I understand that the decision to fund this Research Fund application, the application itself along with all the information entered by my in this form excluding the pronouns, country of residences, and email addresses of the personnel will be published on Wikimedia Foundation Funds pages on Meta-Wiki and will be made available to the public in perpetuity. To make the results of your research actionable and reusable by the Wikimedia volunteer communities, affiliates and Foundation, I agree that any output of my research will comply with the WMF Open Access Policy. I also confirm that I have read the privacy statement and agree to abide by the WMF Friendly Space Policy and Universal Code of Conduct.
- Yes