- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
- Most likely, new comments will not be taken into account by the new three Working Group members in their work of developing the final Recommendations. You are free however to continue discussing in the spirit of "discussing about Wikipedia is a work in progress". :)
- As a matter of urgency, can the WG state the following:
- Was every statement on the discussion page read, as required for a consultation?
- Why was there no active engagement?
- In excess of 90% of those commenting were against a unified COC. Why are the recommendations not taking that on board?
- Has it been considered the likelihood of some or all local Communities not considering this as having any mandate at all unless and until the concerns are actively worked with?
I've still watchlisted the old Talk Pages - please start replying to every discussion (both still on the page and archived) and then resubmit the recommendations once that's done. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed... I've very disappointed (but not surprised) that this is still being pushed forward despite such strong opposition and almost no engagement with that opposition. Why ask us for input again when our previous input has been ignored? EddieHugh (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone who provided feedback on the recommendations. The members of the Community Health working group read all the comments made on the discussion pages. These comments - and comments received at Wikimania, other in person events, through interviews and language wiki conversations, and via direct communication to the Working Group - did lead to changes in the second draft of the recommendations. This new version of the draft recommendations has been published so that the community can see how they are being adapted and how feedback is being taken on board.
- The changes relate to strengthening the need for community involvement in developing a possible Code of Conduct, and other movement-wide measures impacting on communities. Also, in response to comments, we stressed in the second draft that there will have to be room to accommodate local conditions and community preferences when elaborating such a Code or measures for adaptation by communities.
- The Wikimedia 2030 process is currently not in a phase of formal consultation. It is still unclear which elements of the almost 100 recommendations produced will eventually become part of the version to be presented to the WMF Board of Trustees. It is a movement-wide process that aims to produce recommendations for movement organizations and groups worldwide, as well as for all language versions of all Wikimedia projects. Designing a consultation process that will allow all Wikimedians worldwide equal chance to fully participate is a considerable challenge.
- Posted on behalf of the Community Health Working Group, Sandra Rientjes (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- @SRientjes: - you write we stressed in the second draft that there will have to be room to accommodate local conditions and community preferences when elaborating such a Code or measures for adaptation by communities - but the opposition wasn't based that it would prevent add-ons and adaptations by local policy, it was generally disagreement about what the "base rules" might be: both whether that there were any that could legitimately be made that worked cross-culture and, by quite a few, refusal that T&S (who would have to sign off on any base rules, and would probably be involved in their creation) was now trusted enough to hold that position. There were also big implementation concerns and a few other aspects. The changes and discussion, which have been relatively minimal, don't specifically address (let alone resolve) these issues. Until they do, every opposition from the first set remains an opposition to this set. They should be unarchived and re-added Nosebagbear (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I attended the Wikimania session about this and was surprised that what I heard did not seem to match most of the on-wiki discourse. I feel like it could be better explained for the benefit of those who have expressed concern, so I'll just quickly share my takeaway: as per the organizers of that session (or perhaps I should say my understanding thereof), the UCoC is primarily for the many, many Wikimedia projects that do not already have robust policies and processes in place to deal with matters of user conduct. Where those don't exist, the UCoC will be available for them to use optionally as a default, and to build upon it. For those communities that already have such policies and processes, it will be available as an optional resource to use as the community sees fit.
As I understand it, it's something that's been in the works for long before it attracted attention surrounding the framban actions, which understandably colored how the [enwiki, anyway] community perceived its purpose (i.e. as a way to issue blocks/bans the community is equipped to, but has elected not to execute). I got the clear impression at that session (and asked clarifying questions) that the UCoC is not something that will be imposed upon or enforced on enwiki, and that it is potentially very useful for dozens or hundreds of other communities that do not have the procedural infrastructure enwiki (and other well-established projects) have.
If any part of this is incorrect, I apologize and urge WG members to correct me (and if it's correct, it would probably be useful to have it confirmed explicitly, given the amount of both confusion and concern there has been). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- My reading of the recommendations in the text "embedded in the TOS" don't indicate optionality. If it is optional for each community (and I'd need that explicity guaranteed, as you note) then I'd be all in favour of a reasonable set - sort of like the US "model" laws that some states adopt. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. It would be best if this was on-by-default by could be replaced, similar to the rules around paid editing. Unfortunately, that is not what the proposal says. The section "signing up to and upholding this code of conduct is mandatory for all contributors to Wikimedia projects." I say this as someone who supports codes of conduct in specific spaces and thinks that some projects could do a better job with conduct issues. Putting on my OTRS agent hat for a moment, "All user rights groups handling non-public information, currently such as administrators, OTRS agents and other functionaries (see Recommendation “Privacy and security for everyone”), will be have to complete a mandatory session about the code in tailored training modules provided under the “Building an inclusive global community” recommendation." sounds unnecessarily burdensome. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
If this is developed in the ivory towers of WMF, there is a high risk of it being defective. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- If the Wikimania discussion was based on a CoC being optional, and almost all of the on-wiki feedback about a mandatory CoC was negative, then who is continuing to push the concept that (para 2) "signing up to and upholding this code of conduct is mandatory for all contributors to Wikimedia projects"? EddieHugh (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- North8000, this recommendation was prepared by the Community Health working group which, in vast majority, doesn't consist of WMF staff members. And even those who do have "WMF" as their affiliation, participate in their volunteer capacity with no relation to their responsibilities within WMF. It's more of a matter of personal expertise. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Communication with WG and Timing/hotel stay
Based on this page, which states that the "recommendations" were to be connected at a "harmonization sprint" held during 20–22 September at a Mediterranean resort.
- Apparently the Community Health members who attended/are attending were: @Philip Kopetzky, SRientjes, and Mervat:. I plan to email them and would encourage others to do so (for the love of god do so politely, no-one is convinced by screaming). Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Professional is not the same as competent, far less expert.
"Professional" basically says to me that WMF will spend a lot of money on this, but with no guarantee that the "professionals" will have any empathy with the communities of the projects, or any understanding of the problems they face. We may be lucky and get people who can and will do a good job, but I am not holding my breath. For a start, what are the chances they will be mostly or exclusively Americans? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Binding on the WMF
What we need is a CoC binding on the WMF. Once that is done, it might be reasonable to define a CoC binding on the Projects and Communities. — Arthur Rubin T C (en: U, T) 10:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Arthur Rubin: Somewhat relevant: Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Terms_of_Use_for_the_WMF. --Yair rand (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)