Codice universale di condotta/Consultazioni con gli affiliati/Relazione
 | Voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open through 9 May 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. |
Nel febbraio del 2021 il consiglio direttivo ha approvato un codice universale di condotta che comprende tutti gli spazi e le attività offline e online del movimento inclusi i progetti, lo staff di Wikimedia Foundation e staff e membri degli affiliati. Il codice definisce un set di comportamenti auspicabili e di comportamenti inaccettabili a partire dal quale i partecipanti al movimento possono costruire le proprie linee guida e regole. L'applicazione e il processo di attuazione del codice sono un elemento importante per creare un ambiente sicuro negli affiliati e negli spazi in cui si svolgono le attività legate ai progetti.
In questa fase del progetto, in cui ci si propone di creare e definire dei percorsi di segnalazione e metodi di applicazione, le comunità linguistiche e gli affiliati di tutte le dimensioni, tipi e esperienze sono stati consultati per conoscere le loro idee, pensieri, perplessità legati all'applicazione del codice di condotta e ai meccanismi di segnalazione.
In generale gli affiliati ritengono che Wikimedia Foundation dovrebbe cooperare attivamente con i capitoli locali e gli User Group, fornendo assistenza nella risoluzione dei problemi comportamentali a livello locale ove possibile; tale cooperazione potrebbe essere efficacemente migliorata mediante lo sviluppo e l'attuazione del Codice Universale di Condotta (UCoC), e tramite la creazione di regole sulla condotta e sulla risoluzione dei conflitti tra partecipanti all'interno dei regolamenti dei gruppi locali. Gli affiliati riconoscono inoltre che è impossibile escludere l'insorgere di diversi tipi di problemi durante le attività che coinvolgono molti partecipanti, il che rappresenta una sfida per il processo di applicazione. Durante le consultazioni sono stati forniti molti buoni suggerimenti e sono state fatte molte proposte da diversi Affiliati in seguito alle loro discussioni condotte internamente sugli obiettivi principali del processo di consultazione.
Grazie agli organizzatori, vela la pena menzionare che il team del progetto UCoC ha avuto l'opportunità di presentare il processo di consultazione e le attività connesse durante alcuni eventi aperti agli affiliati come le riunioni periodiche ESEAP e la riunione mensile SWAN.
Processo
Invitations were sent to all Affiliates during March and April 2021, starting with the Affiliates that showed interest in the “Safety and Inclusion Requirement” of the Movement Strategy, and ending with the newly recognized Affiliates. Many Affiliates, focusing on well-structured and experienced ones, were invited to direct open discussions. Meetings were conducted with 23 affiliates of different sizes; mostly the directors of these Affiliates attended the meetings, but some also invited different members to participate.
In addition, a survey was sent out to most of the Affiliates in 8 languages, either to the contact persons, directors, mailing lists, meta page, or through an official communication channel. The total respondents were 147 from 24 different Chapters/Thematic Organizations and 27 different User Groups. Both the discussions and the survey were useful tools to get feedback from participants; Affiliates shared their experience in implementing local procedures, policies and code. Learning about the Affiliates’ experiences and the extent to which their experience can be applied and replicated through the emerging UCoC enforcement outline is of great importance. Some Affiliates conducted internal discussions and included the UCoC text in the agendas of their regular official meetings and provided collective feedback.
Situazione attuale
Every Affiliate should have a conflict resolution policy. Most of the consulted Affiliates state they have local procedures, bylaws, and policies. However, some Affiliates know whether everyone is aware of them and knows exactly how to use them.
Procedure interne
- Well-established Chapters explained that they rarely receive complaints about unacceptable behavior, or at least incidents were happening but not being reported. So current procedures are often untested and Affiliates require more clarity on how to deal with issues. Issues include who incidents should be reported to internally, and what the requirements are in terms of wider escalation. On the other hand, three Affiliates explained that they developed and enforced local code of conduct after they faced internal interpersonal conflicts and problems. Some Affiliates reported that they are not very satisfied with the policies they have. They believe they need to enhance the rules. The processes need to be formalized in case they need to refer to these bylaws and policies in front of a court for example. Others need to provide appropriate translations because they usually face challenges in communication in other languages.
Ruolo nei conflitti online
- Affiliates also believe that abuse or harassment is significantly less likely to happen during an event (whether in person or online) compared to asynchronous online communications or projects. Affiliates shouldn’t be involved, let alone be the “judge and jury” in on-wiki situations. Adjudicating such conflicts is the responsibility, and often burden, of the administrators’, who usually face more challenges governing behavior and implementing local policies. However, in some cases, participants refer to Affiliate leaders to report or seek advice about cases that happen online such as banning or blocking. Affiliates usually try to avoid interfering in content-related issues. Affiliates which focus on online content haven’t seen the need to create any type of code because it’s mostly online activity. On one occasion, the talk page of the Affiliate became the anti-harassment tool and space for reporting cases.
Applicazione del CUC
- Almost all participating Affiliates don’t think that UCoC enforcement will or may conflict with the implementation of local procedures or policies. Many participants said that once the enforcement pathways for the UCoC have been agreed and this has been codified into Wikimedia Foundation policy then they will review their own internal policies and procedures and make any changes necessary to ensure alignment.
- Participants said that there needs to be an affirmative moment whereby a participant agrees to be bound by the Code of Conduct if they are to be held to it. So Affiliates follow different approaches to enforcing their local policies and informing members about them. For example, one user group adds a link to the policy in the talk page of any project they initiate or host, along with a section for signatures where participants have to sign in acknowledging that they have read that friendly space policy. Other groups provide access to the guidelines to each member in advance before joining a project. By doing so, it becomes the invitee’s responsibility to read the policy and know that the rules are effective and will apply.
- An interesting mechanism one Chapter applies to enforce the Friendly Space Policy is using a system that mimics a traffic light. Members who violate the policy receive a warning (yellow), repeating the violation is another warning (orange). When it turns red on the third strike, the organization decides a penalty, which could be withdrawing membership – which will not limit people’s participation in events but will limit the person from benefiting from grants.
- Some well-structured Chapters think that if the Chapter has a successful process, they may not replace it with the UCoC, and at the same time, they will not ignore the UCoC, but rather will educate their members on how to refer to it to assess any situations they may face.
- It is worth mentioning that the consultations gave some groups an opportunity to look at the UCoC policy, educate their Affiliate members about it and translate the related pages on Meta. This is a useful side effect of the process.
Le sfide
The major challenge the enforcement outline drafting process will face is the difficulty of producing a policy that truly represents needs and values from around the world, due to the global nature of the UCoC. Following are the major challenges and concerns related to UCoC, gathered from the Affiliates consultations:
Rapporti con Wikimedia Foundation
- There were some concerns that given the current relationship between the community and Wikimedia Foundation, some communities/groups and many members of the communities could simply refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Foundation as an enforcer and in general some stakeholders won’t welcome whatever comes from them. Relations with WMF teams, specifically the Trust & Safety team (T&S) and the Legal Department, are often not well established.
- For example, one of the attendees explained that when he faced legal threats, it was hard to explain to the legal team, due to language and cultural barriers. The legal team was not prepared to support them.
- Another case was that volunteers couldn't obtain legal support against legal threats that they faced once, because they are not staff, but only volunteers.
- A few participants mentioned that they are not happy with how complaints are handled, investigations about harassment cases are done in an unacceptable way, some volunteers claimed they were accused for problems that they already knew nothing about or were not involved in; investigations don’t fairly balance between trying to protect users against false allegations and trying to satisfy complainants; there are concerns that users are now encouraged to report false cases to T&S because there isn’t a balanced mechanism nor transparency in place in the view of participants.
- In addition, sometimes, there are problems with hypothetical scenarios, including that people report directly to WMF because they cannot assess the situations locally. T&S should investigate these issues considering local perspectives, there is a gap in communication, and there has to be a known mechanism of investigations and communications with all parties.
The possibility of the code creating a structure where local conduct decisions by administrators and elected arbitrators could be overturned unilaterally by the Trust & Safety Operations team was opposed; desire for that team not to function as an effective “court of appeals” for local decisions
— an Affiliate member
Scarsa fiducia tra i membri della comunità
- People find it difficult to deal with the allies of users they have concerns about in communities, because communities tend to protect some people who break the rules.
Applicazione del codice universale di condotta nelle interazioni sui social media
- How will the UCoC be implemented when it comes to communications in social media? This was a concern that some small-sized Affiliates raised because they depend on social media for communication. However, while many are strongly against the usage of WhatsApp and Telegram, they often recommend using Signal instead.
Integrazione delle linee guida locali con il codice universale di condotta
- For the benefit of the wiki community, local Wikimedia Chapters and user groups can also support conflict resolution in online Wiki projects. However, here, organizations can act as advisors or facilitators but not directly interfere in the internal discussions of online wiki projects. Still, some Chapters explained that the integration of their local policies will not contradict the UCoC and the implementation will be easy. When it comes to the online language communities, where most of the violations happen and where volunteers usually reach out to the Affiliate directors or members for support related to their on-wiki participation, such as banning/unbanning, etc., it will not be easy to integrate the local policies with the UCoC. This challenge is especially important when Wikipedia and its sister projects are not limited to a single-country but cover languages spoken in several countries; such as Portuguese and Spanish projects.
Preoccupazioni su possibili discriminazioni
- In the multilingual Chapters, the problems of discrimination are very probable, but they find it difficult to apply the policies specially that there is some type of integration with other Chapters. For example, Chapters that have members of different languages, and on the other hand, some languages are handled by different Affiliates, such as Arabic Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia. The problems arise when the conflicts happen on-wiki and Affiliates are requested to engage in managing such conflicts.
Preoccupazioni sulle implicazioni legali
- Under the UCoC, how will staff of Affiliates be managed in case they are involved in legal issues that relate to their work or to other members? For example, if an Affiliate staff member is being sued in front of the court for a decision that he took against a member or as a witness. There is a need for more conversation about this.
Riservatezza
- Sometimes individuals or certain groups perceive local Wikimedia organizations as the owner of Wikipedia and send a request for information about editors. It is important that the local Wikimedia organizations maintain the principle of confidentiality, thus protecting editors from possible harassment. Of course, in smaller countries the staff of the organization often knows most of the online editors, because they entered the Wikimedia movement through the organization's projects and programs. From this point of view, the reputation of Wikimedia in that country and the professionalism of the Affiliate staff are important in order to be able to protect the right of editors to privacy.
Gestione di casi gravi (reati)
- In the event of serious criminal elements (physical threats, sexual harassment, blackmail, slander, etc.) in conflicts arising in online wiki projects, some Affiliates advise victims to report to law enforcement agencies. This work can be done by both the victim and other editors familiar with the issue. Yet it’s not clear how the victim can collect evidence, present the case to the intended agency, or even how local laws may apply to wiki-related issues, neither the support the Affiliate provides is clear.
Volontari nei progetti vs organizzatori di eventi
- Currently there is a big divide between community-centric Wikimedians and content-only, online -only Wikipedians. Help bridging that gap is needed; restarting conversations about dispute resolution, Women contributors – micro-aggressions, cliques, “tribalism” how can these issues be addressed?
Lost in translation
- Wikimedia behavioral regulations are mostly written in complex English that is not understood by many non-English-speaking contributors. On the other side, the Wikimedia Foundation has a limited number of non-English speaking staffers (for example Chinese) that could understand reports and reply emails from non-English speakers.
Contributi anonimi (IP)
- Contributions by IP address editors have been one of the major contention points---a lot of projects saw confrontation and harassment from IP address editors, which can be nearly impossible to trace if using proxy services.
Casi particolari
- Affiliates in Europe need to comply with the regulations of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), especially when it relates to revealing personal information. However an Affiliate clarified that GDPR is only for databases. There is a need to consider if this will contradict the UCoC.
- Members of the WikiWomen's User Group did not want to attend the meeting the project team offered because they were expecting some help from the Wikimedia Foundation regarding notability criteria on Wikipedia, a major barrier to some gender-centric initiatives. However, such help did not come as hoped-for and so they don't think their opinions on the UCoC will be listened to either. The UCoC community facilitators are mentioning this scenario to illustrate one of the reasons why Affiliates/communities may refuse to participate in the UCoC conversations.
- Contentious political situations between Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Mainland China has led to several behavioral and safety issues, some of which have also implicated the Affiliates in that region.
- One facilitator had several discussions with two leaders of the Wikimedia Russia and Russian-speaking user groups. The focal point was about the lack of participation by their community. The two leaders explained that many people appear to be upset and unwilling to fill in the survey, criticising it instead of filling it in. They themselves thought the survey looked like nonsense because it’s uncommon to them, questions seem to be hardly understandable and of little relevance. They hesitated to answer some questions because they felt that it was somehow dishonest if they did. According to them, most of their members tried to say the same thing and that is one of the reasons why their attitude to the Code is neutral to negative: ”much of useless side activity spreading community resources thinly”. However, they are planning to make their own Trust and Safety team of one person and want to propose the role to the group soon. They asked the facilitator if that’s a good solution. The main complaint has been that Russian community gets little attention from WMF, which has made many surveys and requests and many people were answering it for years, but almost nothing is getting done in response. There were many discussions at Meta about how to translate UCoC text properly into Russian. Many users provided feedback. Their feedback was ignored and WMF keeps proposing the erroneous versions.
Richieste e riflessioni sull'efficacia dell'applicazione e del reporting
Reporting behavioral issues that may occur in the wikimedia projects and user groups is one of the most important pillars of this Code of Conduct. The code must clearly identify all possible practical reporting pathways making use of the successful processes that some Affiliates currently apply, considering all challenges and requirements of the different communities and groups, such as safety and protection. Another important consideration is to recognize the different sizes and abilities of organized groups in the movement in terms of their capacity to receive reports and action them. In addition, enforcement outlines should consider the differing abilities of community members to communicate and interact in social groups.
Most of the Affiliates that participated in this consultation didn’t clarify specific reporting pathways, yet most of them agreed on that problems arise within the Affiliate’s activities must be addressed by the relevant structure of the Affiliate and severe cases must be addressed by the foundation and in case of conflicts with criminal elements, the victims can apply to the law enforcement bodies in their countries; however, more than one Affiliate requested that if a complaint is immediately addressed to the Wikimedia Foundation, then the local Wikimedia organization must be actively involved in the process of addressing the issue. Not only that, but Affiliates also need to know when they are obligated to report conduct issues to the Foundation under a new reporting environment.
Where we need support is to jointly clarify in which cases it will be the Chapter’s responsibility to respond to UCoC violations, and in which cases this responsibility lies with the Wikimedia Foundation
People need to know whom to return to, this means roles and responsibilities in the Affiliate have to be clarified in regards to the new code, specially that some communities are very diverse and it’s difficult to see who should be in charge. At least one Chapter expressed concerns that, if written into grant agreements with insufficient clarity, it would expose the Chapter to new avenues of litigation by people the Chapter has asked to leave events or the membership group.
In this context, the Affiliate’s chairman, a supervisory committee and the staff should be considered problem-solving platforms and hence they have to be able to identify conflicts and provide constructive solutions, considering public safety and solidarity. Smaller Affiliates think that there is a need for a committee of specialized people including a consultant from Wikimedia Foundation who would be responsible for enforcing the rules and remind people about the policy.
Enforcement requires some proportionate sanction – there has to be a meaningful downside to infractions, but the punishment has to be seen to fit the violation. But the goal should not only be to find and punish the culprits, to protect the victims, but also to reconcile them in that process, to bring them to a constructive field. However, sometimes it is not possible to deescalate the situation and to eliminate the mistakes without an administrative sanction. In that case, the administrators must be strictly guided by the regulations.
Arbcom has been mentioned as well as a successful model in some communities; but it didn’t work in others. Some claimed that it’s not easy to find volunteers who are willing to join Arbcom teams, and at the same time, it may fail due to the nature of the community.
In the case when a member faces a behavior problem, in an event, they report to the organizers of the event; there may be a need to identify the considerations to be taken when wikimedians participate in an event that is organized by external organizations.
One Affiliate mentioned that they think the majority is silent because they don’t know they can report or because the rules are not there; this is a big challenge that can be solved by education and awareness programs. There is a need to better define the types of harassment and how participants can be aware of these types including defining the types that can be or should be reported. What’s important is to define how harassment can be prevented before happening. One Affiliate is in favor of a global enforcement plan that could be adapted and contextualized within the interests of local communities, and supports the idea of a localized enforcement within appropriate local authorities.
The procedures of accepting complaints should maintain confidentiality, and each event and program has to have rules which are mandatory for all participants. Many Affiliates think training is needed for Affiliates to direct them on how to solve different types of situations; also training is required for volunteers to educate and guide them on how they should react if they face problems. Also, training was requested on topics that could help them prevent the non-accepted behavior before it occurs. A need to educate people, especially more experienced members who may have to commit to the implementation; not only that, but as some Chapters will use the UCoC as a reference, they need to educate their members about it and how to refer to it.
Currently, the most commonly used reporting tool is emails. It’s good that many groups designated an official email to report through, but the challenge is that people don’t report or detail the situation the same way and this needs to be enhanced, possibly using a unified template. Moreover, it’s been clarified that only staff can access this email, and staff are committed to protect the details of the members according to the contracts they sign.
Discussing safety of reporting, some participants envision a tool that provides three options (or levels) of reporting: report that can be published to the public, report that can be handled privately, but can still be shared with some people, and reports that should always be managed privately and securely. The tool should be accessible online in the Wikipedia pages, talk pages, village pumps and in the meta pages of the Affiliates. Contrary to that, others believe that reports should never be made publicly, but ideally, there must be as many channels as possible that are low-threshold and protected/private so that people can contact their Affiliate confidentially via their preferred channel.
We believe that the safety of the complainant is of great importance and of the highest priority, but not highest priority, Highest priority is to clarify and solve the case.
There is a need to enhance the communication ways in order to guarantee a successful implementation of the UCoC. There is a need to educate the directors how to be responsible for implementation then they will be responsible for teaching other members and newcomers regularly. For non-responsible members, there is a need to produce visual teaching materials like animation and videos.
Sostegno richiesto a WMF
Almost all user groups will require support to build a system for implementation. The support needed is categorized as follows:
Guida e consapevolezza
- To enforce the UCoC, many groups will need support from Wikimedia Foundation to define the easiest ways of implementation, especially in the political and legal influenced issued; and helping the on-wiki victims to provide evidence on the cases they faced more easily, because they hold the entire burden of the problems.
Empowerment
- Chapters and user groups which feel responsible for smaller local language communities usually require support to support these isolated communities to boost their participation, which is vulnerable to stop and withdraw because they don’t feel welcomed and may face bullying; Wikimedia South Africa, for example, raised this concern.
Sostegno alle vittime di molestie
- Locally, this can be limited to a certain level, but groups need to learn how to provide this support. Of the good practices some Chapters do, that can be taken as lessons: in Wikimedia South Africa, they do campaigns sometimes on social media, but that's not sufficient according to them. Wikimedia CH (Switzerland) apply a program for mediation, where they are willing to pay for mediation for any member who may need it when facing problems, especially threats or harassment; and even for members who violate rules, if that would help reduce conflicts. This is similar somehow to the psychological help program that Wikimédia France applies.
Sostegno legale
- Some User Groups and Chapters mentioned the need for legal support. This includes supporting members who face external threats or course suits; such members usually need guidance and counselling; a designated legal expert can be appointed to guide people on what they can do considering the social aspects. Wikimedia CH is willing to pay for these members and for lawyers in case they need that support. In addition, this type of support is required for the entire group/chapter, especially if they lack sufficient experience (take the case of banning the Turkish Wikipedia and the support that Wikimedia Community User Group Turkey needed as an example). This support could be from local entities or from the WMF’s legal team. Hiring lawyers by the foundation for the benefit of the Affiliates is also a request; however, these hires may not be safe doing their job under certain political tension (for example, the Chinese-speaking community).
Costruire relazioni
- WMF should support in building better relations with governmental entities; for example, participants may face problems when initiating projects like photo contests, which cause frustration. Such support will help create a healthier environment.
Wikimedia Foundation has resources, and relationships; they can form diplomatic channels with entities that can provide protection (i.e. safety net) and formal allies like Human Rights Watch
— an Affiliate member
Sostegno economico
- Financial support may be needed to hire consultants, and to build the required tools (e.g. for reporting). User groups would be open to receive additional funding to invest in T&S, maybe by hiring specialists or lawyers. Currently, the financial support Affiliates receive from Wikimedia Foundation to invest in community health is insufficient.
A user group like Wikimedia Indonesia technically handles a country the size of Europe with a shoe-string budget!
Sostegno tecnico
- To build the required tools, visual aids and educational material.
In May 2020, the WMF Board of Trustees posted a Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces, in which the Board, among others, instruct the Foundation to “significantly increase support for and collaboration with community functionaries primarily enforcing such compliance in a way that prioritizes the personal safety of these functionaries”. In addition, the Board explicitly directed the Foundation to “make additional investments in Trust & Safety capacity” and undertake it “in coordination and collaboration with appropriate partners from across the movement”. The Affiliates could be one of the targets of this mandate, owing to its strategic position within the Movement; perhaps through more target-specific funding as part of the Grants.
Questionario
Il questionario è stato proposto in 8 lingue a numerosi affiliati affinché lo divulgassero ai loro soci, è stato inviato ad altri affiliati sulla loro pagina di discussione usando i messaggi automatici e usando i canali ufficiali riferiti agli affiliati come le mailing list. Le risposte totali sono state 147 da 24 Chapters/Organizzazioni tematiche e da 27 User Group.
Le domande puntavano ad accertare il livello di conoscenza delle rispettive procedure e linee guida dell'affiliato utilizzando delle affermazioni che guidassero le risposte dei partecipanti al questionario. Inoltre, altre domande avevano lo scopo di far emergere riflessioni sui metodi migliori di segnalazione e applicazione delle linee guida sulla base dell'esperienza del partecipante.
| Chi ha risposto? | |
|---|---|
| 1. Qual è il tuo ruolo all’interno dell’Affiliato? | 2. Da quanto tempo sei coinvolto in questo Affiliato? |
Linee guida locali e sistema di segnalazione
| Stato delle linee guida locali | |
|---|---|
| 1. Ritieni che il tuo Affiliato abbia esegua un codice di condotta locale, o delle regole o politiche sufficienti per prevenire e/o gestire situazioni di conflitto o comportamento illecito tra i membri? | 2. Indica il grado in cui ritieni che lo statuto del tuo Affiliato sia sufficientemente adeguato per prevenire efficacemente comportamenti scorretti nei confronti dei soci: (1=inadeguato, 5=completamente adeguato) |
Alla domanda sul grado di efficacia delle linee guida locali nel prevenire comportamenti negativi la media è stata pari a 3.65 e non ha mostrato variazioni legate alla durata della partecipazione. Guardando però i valori per i diversi ruoli all'interno degli affiliati il valore medio della valutazione delle politiche interne è leggermente inferiore per i membri del direttivo (media = 3.49).
| Stato dei sistemi di segnalazione |
|---|
|
1. Il tuo Affiliato ha un sistema di segnalazione chiaro, che tutti i membri possono utilizzare senza problemi? |
Per quanto riguarda l'esistenza di un sistema di segnalazione le risposte sono talvolta contraddittorie all'interno dello stesso affiliati, ciò dimostra che probabilmente anche a fronte dell'esistenza di percorsi di segnalazione tra soci, membri del direttivo e personale non tutti sono a conoscenza della loro esistenza.
Ci sono stati diversi commenti sui sistemi di segnalazione. Alcune persone condividono l'opinione che non siano necessari sistemi formali all'interno delle comunità piccole in cui tutti si conoscono e si presume possano funzionare sistemi informali. D'altro canto è emerso che alcuni affiliati di grandi dimensioni, con percorsi formali per partecipanti e soci tavolta si dimenticano dello staff che non ha oppure non è a conoscenza di sistemi di segnalazione chiari e strutturati. Ci sono diversi suggerimenti, come la nomina di una persona qualificata nella soluzione dei conflitti o la creazione di un canale dedicato per le segnalazioni.
Come hai appreso del sistema di segnalazione del tuo Affiliato?
| Metodo | Risposte |
|---|---|
| Direttamente tramite la documentazione sulla wiki | 41 |
| Mi è stato mostrato da un membro del direttivo o del personale dell’Affiliato | 37 |
| Mi è stato mostrato da un/una socio/a o da un/una volontario/a dell’Affiliato | 21 |
| Tra gli altri metodi riportati ci sono comunicazioni via email inviate dall'affiliati durante la procedura d'iscrizione, conferenze o eventi off-wiki. | |
A parte dire che "se hai dei problemi rivolgiti alla persona X" non ne abbiamo.
— Risposta al questionario
Non sono sicuro che esista un sistema di segnalazione all'interno dell'associazione. Nel nostro codice di condotta c'è solo scritto "in caso di violazioni fate riferimento a questo codice inviando un messaggio pubblico o privato" ma non indica da nessuna parta a chi inviare il messaggio.
— Risposta al questionario
I principali strumenti che i partecipanti si aspettando di usare per fare una segnalazione sono: via Email (121), di persona (64), 54 la farebbero via social media - indendendo sistemi come Whatsapp o Telegram. Solo pochi hanno fatto riferimento a IRC (12) o altri metodi di comunicazione come una pagina di segnalazioni o altri strumenti interni all'associazione come ML o wiki private.
Per quanto riguarda la privacy delle segnalazioni e dei risultati le due domande principali sono state:
Secondo te, chi dovrebbe essere in grado di vedere i dettagli e gli esiti di una segnalazione?
- Parti direttamente coinvolte: 93
- Membri del direttivo e personale dell’Affiliato: 89
- Wikimedia Foundation: 70
- Pubblico generico, attraverso i portali ufficiali degli Affiliati: 37
Molti partecipanti al sondaggio hanno risposto che questo dipende dalla sensibilità del caso e dei suoi dettagli, la trasparenza e l'accountability sono considerate importanti ma non se compromettono la sicurezza delle parti coinvolte.
C'è una linea sottile tra il diritto alla privacy e la necessità di trasparenza
— Risposta al questionario
In quali circostanze pensi che una segnalazione dovrebbe essere privata? Seleziona tutte le risposte pertinenti.
- Segnalazioni che riguardano informazioni potenzialmente sensibili o personali: 64
- Tutte le segnalazioni: 51
- Segnalazioni di abusi personali: 55
- Segnalazioni che coinvolgono autori di abusi di lungo periodo: 20
- Nessuno (tutte le segnalazioni dovrebbero essere pubbliche): 15
Ogni cosa che non viene risolta deve rimanere privata. Dopo la soluzione di un conflitto dovrebbe essere pubblicata solo una nota informativa ai fini della valutazione.
— Risposta al questionario
| Stato dei sistemi di segnalazione | |
|---|---|
|
Quanto sei a tuo agio con il sistema di segnalazione e i processi definiti e seguiti nel tuo Affiliato? Seleziona tutte le risposte pertinenti. |
Legenda
|
Quali sono i motivi per cui i membri non segnalano un comportamento inappropriato o non etico nel tuo Affiliato? Seleziona tutte le risposte pertinenti.'
- Non esiste un protocollo o un processo chiaro. Non saprebbero cosa fare.: 62
- Mancanza di supporto da parte della direzione dell’Affiliato e/o di altri membri.: 22
- Mancanza di fiducia nel fatto che i problemi segnalati verranno affrontati in modo equo.: 48
- Paura di ritorsioni.: 50
- Preoccupazione per la loro reputazione (non desiderano essere considerati come una persona collegata a situazioni problematiche): 61
- Preoccupazione per la reputazione dell’Affiliato.: 27
- Il processo di segnalazione non è trasparente, quindi non attendibile.: 22
- Saprebbero come rispondere in modo appropriato se si verificasse un evento avverso per loro o per un collega, senza riportarlo al Direttivo dell’Affiliato.: 27
(Rispondi a questa domanda se sei un membro del direttivo o del personale. In caso contrario, SALTA la domanda.) Con quali delle seguenti affermazioni SEI D’ACCORDO riguardo ai processi di condotta presso il tuo Affiliato? Selezionare tutte le risposte pertinenti.
- Il nostro codice di condotta locale è facilmente accessibile per tutti i soci.: 44
- Il nostro codice di condotta e lo statuto locali sono sempre consultati (come riferimento principale) per indagare su eventuali segnalazioni relative al comportamento in modo imparziale e obiettivo.: 31
- I denuncianti possono dare seguito alle segnalazioni che effettuano e possono chiedere aggiornamenti.: 34
- Il codice di condotta e lo statuto locali vengono rivisti regolarmente e aggiornati ogni volta che è necessario.: 23
- I nostri regolamenti interni sono adeguatamente flessibili, in modo da adottare modifiche ed emendamenti e affrontare eventuali carenze che possono sussistere.: 28
- Il codice di condotta universale non entrerà in conflitto con il nostro codice di condotta locale, ma lo integrerà e si aggiungerà a quest’ultimo.: 42
- In qualità di membro del direttivo/personale dell’Affiliato, di solito illustriamo le aspettative e facciamo chiarezza sulla riservatezza e su ciò che il denunciante può aspettarsi durante il processo di indagine.: 22
- In qualità di membro del direttivo/personale dell’Affiliato, desideriamo condurre degli approfondimenti se i denuncianti non sono soddisfatti dei risultati.: 31
- In qualità di membro del direttivo/personale dell’Affiliato, teniamo traccia dei dettagli e delle risoluzioni per ogni caso o reclamo.: 26
- Le lezioni apprese dalle indagini vengono comunicate al personale e ai soci.: 20
- In qualità di membro del direttivo/personale dell’Affiliato, riteniamo che la sicurezza del denunciante sia di grande importanza e una priorità assoluta.: 39
- In qualità di membro del direttivo/personale dell’Affiliato, di solito valutiamo i nostri sistemi di segnalazione e li promuoviamo per garantire che i denuncianti segnalino in modo sicuro incidenti e comportamenti scorretti.: 18
- In qualità di membro del direttivo/personale dell’Affiliato, siamo soddisfatti del processo di segnalazione che abbiamo. Per il momento, continueremo a utilizzare lo stesso sistema.: 16
(Rispondi a questa domanda SOLO se sei coinvolto nella gestione degli incidenti segnalati.) Con quale frequenza informate i denuncianti dei risultati delle segnalazioni che hanno fatto o in cui sono coinvolti?
(32 risposte)
- Sempre: 14
- Spesso: 7
- Talvolta: 6
- Raramente: 3
- Mai: 2
Alcuni affiliati non hanno un codice di condotta interno. Alla domanda su quali riferimenti sono utilizzati per risolvere conflitti o valutare comportamenti inappropriati le risposte variano a seconda delle dimensioni. Alcuni hanno un codice interno o hanno adottato codici già esistenti come il codice di condotta mediawiki, alcuni hanno un regolamento interno, alcuni hanno linee guida sugli eventi e fanno riferimento alle linee guida di Wikipedia per il comportamento, i gruppi più piccoli si affidano al buon senso o segnalano ai leader e coordinatori.
Impatto del CUC
| Stato delle linee guida locali | |
|---|---|
| 1. In che misura pensi che l’applicazione del nuovo UCoC possa entrare in conflitto con lo statuto esistente o il Codice di condotta locale nel tuo Affiliato? (1=bassa probabilità 5=alta probabilità)
, |
2. Di quanto aiuto pensi che il tuo Affiliato abbia bisogno per implementare il nuovo UCoC, soprattutto in assenza di statuti locali e codici interni? (1=nessun aiuto, 5=molto aiuto) |
Se hai indicato che il tuo Affiliato abbia bisogno di aiuto per implementare l’UCoC, che tipo di aiuto potrebbe rivelarsi necessario?
- Un sistema di segnalazione e della formazione sul suo utilizzo.
- Un manuale di casi specie, formazione, workshop in lingua locale.
- Se è necessario scrivere un regolamento o uno statuto avremo bisogno di aiuto per farlo.
- Al momento facciamo riferimento solo alla Friendly Space Policy.
- Sarebbe utile conoscere le linee guida e cosa fanno altri chapter.
Quale delle seguenti operazioni pensi che il tuo Affiliato possa e debba fare per implementare efficacemente l’UCoC?
- Linee guida scritte e accessibili.: 99
- Formazione dei membri del personale, dei soci e/o dei volontari dell’Affiliato su come segnalare gli incidenti.: 95
- Guida per il personale su come implementare l’UCoC ogni volta che viene eletto un nuovo direttivo o viene assunto nuovo personale.: 75
- Promemoria periodici sull’esistenza e l’importanza dell’UCoC, nonché sul suo utilizzo.: 79
- Revisione periodica del modo in cui l’UCoC viene utilizzato per gestire i rapporti fra soci o volontari nell’Affiliato.: 75
Quali sono alcuni modi in cui i membri del direttivo dell’Affiliato possono aiutare a diffondere la consapevolezza sull’UCoC tra i loro soci e volontari?
- Comunicazioni diffuse prima degli eventi offline, allegato all'invito, nel sito o nella ML.
- Tramite social media, piccoli video o volantini o altre forme di comunicazioni usate dall'affiliato.
- E' importante informare i nuovi soci e avere linee guida chiare e accessibili.
(Rispondi SOLO se sei un membro del Direttivo o del personale dell’Affiliato) Quali ulteriori passaggi possono intraprendere i membri del direttivo dell’Affiliato per garantire un’implementazione più agevole dell’UCoC?
- Sostenere l'UCoC, fare formazione sul tema ai volontari, creare comunicazioni chiare tra i soci su temi legati all'UCoC.
- Organizzare formazione per staff e volontari, divulgazione, creare consapevolezza, inviare reminder periodici e sondaggi, aggiornare codici e linee guida interne.
- Sostegno alle vittime.
Come potrebbe essere misurata e monitorata la conformità all’UCoC nel tuo Affiliato?
- Sondaggi anonimi (annuali) ai soci e volontari.
- Report periodici su argomenti legati all'UCoC come segnalazioni e soluzione dei casi.
- Creare un team di monitoraggio composto da personale Trust and Safety di Wikimedia Foundation dedicato agli affiliati e richiedere report periodici
- I soci dovrebbero poter trasmettere segnalazioni sulle modalità dell'affiliato locale di gestire i casi ad un ente globale che supervisioni l'attuazione del codice universale di condotta.
- Ci dovrebbe essere un membro della community responsabile per UCoC
- Valtuare la disponibilità ad accettare investigazioni, il risultato delle stesse, il numero di report ecc.
[...] prestare attenzione al follow-up e agire sulla formazione della comunità specificando che l'obiettivo non è la soppressione della liberà di espressione ma quello di lavorare all'interno di un contesto generale di comportamento, proteggere le persone, sostenere tutte le idee e prevenire bullismo e derisione.
— Risposta al questionario
Staff dedicato con l'incarico di occuparsi di questo e aiutato da revisioni esterne ogni paio d'anni, come una sorta di audit.
— Risposta al questionario
Per quanto riguarda la possibilità che il codice universale di condotta contribuisca alla sostenibilità nel lungo periodo dell'affiliato, nonostante alcune critiche al processo in genere le persone pensano che UCoC e la consapevolezza dei suoi obiettivi possano avere un impatto positivo sulle attività, sulla retention e sul clima di collaborazione. L'efficacia di questo dipenderà dalla sua attuazione e applicazione e da quanto il processo verrà vissuto come "calato dall'alto".
Potrà aiutare a mantenere un ambiente amichevole (che è già una cosa buona), ma non mi aspetto che sia di aiuto per la sostenibilità dell'affiliato. La sostenibilità ha bisogno di molte altre cose oltre all'ambiente amichevole.
— Risposta al questionario
Riferimenti e note
Following are some references that some Affiliates provided during the discussions:
- Collective feedback from Art+Feminism User Group
- From Wikimedia UK:
- Policies, guidelines, and procedures of Wikimedia Österreich:
- (francese) Events Policy of Les sans pagEs
- Code of Conduct of Wikimedia Taiwan
- (arabo) Code of Conduct of Wikimedians of the Levant User Group
- Code of Conduct of Wiki Movement Brazil User Group
- Respectful Behavior Space Policy of Wikimedia CH
Considerations for the future
- In a discussion with a user group, a participant objected that the discussion took place in another language than the group’s official language: “I would just like to add something: if the topic of the meeting is really important for the Wikimedia Foundation, I think the first thing to do would be to allow this exchange to take place in the language of the participants of the group.”
- Objections to using Google forms came from many groups and individuals; even Qualtrics was not a solution for them; data of people are usually imposed using these tools. At the same time, Wikimedia Foundation is not encouraged to use open source platforms because they host data externally and that's not the solution. Suggestions are that Wikimedia Foundation should have worked on tools and platforms since people had complained about it a long time ago, especially if they have money to do it. The change cannot be done on a day, but participants would accept it if the foundation shared a real plan with the groups that includes dates.
- Many responses we received included complains about the timing of the consultation process as it conflicts with too many other open discussions; this processes intersected with the discussions about the outcomes of the Movement Strategy Recommendations, discussions about the board governance and elections; “we can consider throwing off some of the issues to trigger people on thinking about more focused items”; In addition, the process started with other annual projects such as WikiGap, Women’s International month, etc. in which many groups participate. Not only that, but our processes were confusing to some groups/individuals; for example, we sent the “Targets of Harassment” survey to Affiliates at the same time they were requested to take the Affiliates consultations survey.
- Increase direct communication with the smaller groups. This increases engagement and encourages them to provide input and feedback. This has been raised previously in phase 1 and another time in phase two, and both comments came from African user groups, who expressed their excitement about someone from the foundation consulting with them and asking for their opinions.
- AffCom: Should Affcom be more involved in facilitating some communications specifically with Affiliates that don’t respond?
{{|Universal Code of Conduct/Navbox}}