WikiConference India 2016/Code of Conduct/Reflections from WikiConference India 2016

Chinmayi S.K. and Rohini Lakshané

This write-up is an attempt to document and retrospectively assess our experiences and observations as the Diversity and Inclusion (DI) team and the Response Team responsible for writing and enforcing the Code of Conduct at WikiConference India (WCI) 2016. We hope that this document will be used for gaining insight and learning for future conferences and events. The conference has been a learning experience for us. We urge everyone to read this document in light of the fact that this was the first time any Wikimedia community in India was brought under the purview of a Code of Conduct and Friendly Space Policy at an event. We also want to state that the motivation behind writing this is not to assign blame on any individual or group involved in the organisation of WCI, only to document our lessons and to enable everyone to learn for the sake of future events. The idea is not to point out and underline failure but to identify points of failure in hindsight. We have consciously avoided naming names or referring to words and actions that could be attributed to individuals. This strips this content of some clarity and detail, but we take that as a trade-off between providing objective and nonpartisan feedback and avoiding potential mud-slinging.

Refer to the Code of Conduct and its allied framework here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiConference_India_2016/Code_of_Conduct

WCI had a Code of Conduct (CoC) and a friendly space policy governing all participants and organisers as well as directives for the organisers to increase diversity and inclusion.

Scholarship Allocation

• We commend the organisers for following our recommendations regarding participant diversity for scholarship allocation.
• However, we are disappointed to find this statement on the official page of WCI Scholarships: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiConference_India_2016/Scholarships#Decision

“Given the high quality of applicants overall and the diversity and inclusion policy, sometimes even a strong application will not make it through, so please don’t let this discourage you from applying for future scholarships.”

A possible interpretation of this statement could be that strong applications get shortchanged by possibly weak ones because of (undeserved) benefits granted by policies meant to improve diversity and inclusion in terms of gender, language and region.

Friendly Space Policy

We had confirmed with the organisers before the start of the conference that they would be able to follow our recommendations regarding the friendly space policy and accessibility. (“Thanks a lot for your precious comments. We have confirmed that all the facilities such as lifts, ramps, accessible washroom etc. are available at the venue. Childcare facilities will also be available at the venue. Our venue coordinator has confirmed that we don't need additional budget for this.” [[1]])

However, we observed that, with respect to the friendly space policy:

• There was no Quiet Room for the participants to decompress.
• There were no self-appointed “vibe checkers” in discussions. It is possible that most people were not aware of the existence or need for such a role. This could also be attributed to not reading or not being aware of the CoC. The printed version of the CoC was four pages long whereas we had clearly indicated participant guidelines to be printed and distributed with the conference kit.

Logistic Requirements for Inclusivity

Logistic requirements for inclusivity were missing at the venue.

• We did not see any childcare facilities at the venue. In fact we noticed some participants had brought their young children in the conference rooms and were taking care of them while attending sessions.
• All-gender bathrooms were missing at the venue.
• We did not find any prayer rooms at the venue, given that the conference was three days long and lasted from morning to night, it might have been useful for some participants.

We understand that some logistic requirements were not fulfilled due to issues with the venue/ host institution. However, confirming the availability of these logistics but not implementing them causes inconvenience to participants.

Accessibility

We acknowledge and appreciate that the organising team had included a section in the signup form for participants to indicate their accessibility needs. They also followed up with the relevant participants based on their responses.

• Apparently, there were no participants with accessibility needs, so none of the accessibility directives were followed.
• We did not spot anyone who seemed to have accessibility needs. We did not receive complaints at the venue.
• We did receive complaints after the end of the conference about the logistics not being senior citizen-friendly. The access to some of the conference rooms was not equipped with ramps or elevators. Some of the sessions were held on higher floors, which made them hard to reach in terms of accessibility.

Code of Conduct

• Many members of the organising team seemed to not have familiarised themselves with the Code of Conduct for participants, let alone the directives for organisers.
• We got no volunteers to help translate the CoC. The CoC was only available in English, which could have led to some participants not reading or understanding it. Our concern is that future events might not adopt the same or another CoC because of this.
  • We strongly recommend that the CoC be translated, adapted and implemented at future regional and national conferences, outreach events, trainings and even meetups in the country.
• In hindsight, the organisers and Response Team should have jointly developed an event ban policy for identifying and handling individuals who may be banned in the interest of the physical and mental well-being of the participants of the event.

Selection of speakers and proposals

The Diversity and Inclusion team was roped in to the Programs Team for assessing proposals and selecting speakers and proposals. We would have preferred to give guidelines instead of being directly involved in the selection. However, with only a few days left for the start of the conference, we agreed to join the team.

• At the time of inviting proposals, it may have been useful to replicate a tried-and-tested submission process from a previous conference, such as Wikimania, or refer to best practices from previous conferences. As the proposal submission happened entirely on Meta, no diversity-related information about speakers was available from the proposals. Moreover, it is not desirable to seek diversity-related personal information on a public platform such as Meta, because it has privacy implications. People belonging to marginalised or vulnerable demographics could be averse to disclosing such information publicly.
• The only way to contact speakers who has submitted proposals was to leave a message on their Meta talk pages.
• There was no separate process to invite diverse speakers nor a mechanism to ensure diversity in the content of the proposals.
• Panels: There was a good effort to not have manels (men-only panels).
• As the default language of the conference was English, the DI team had recommended that interpreters be used where there the speaker was unable to communicate in English. This recommendation was not met. We would like to add that we made this recommendation about 3 to 4 days before the conference as we realised interpreters may be a requirement, while assessing some of the proposals as the Programs Team.

Recommendations for future conferences/ events

• In view of the quality of some of the submissions at WCI, in order to invite proposals of better quality, it may be helpful to ask potential speakers to submit:
  • A link to a video or other documentation of a talk made previously on the same or similar topic.
  • Slide deck/ comprehensive abstract with a lower limit for the number of words, for assessment purposes.
  • One of the speakers in the gender gap track had submitted an abstract proposal explicitly on the topic of gender gap, which was one of the grounds for accepting the proposal. However, the actual talk was not related to gender gap. It is completely unacceptable that a speaker hijacks a talk or a session for promoting interests or topics irrelevant or only tangentially relevant to the topic of the session, especially if the topic pertains to gender gap, diversity or inclusion. It might be useful to maintain a list of such speakers for future events.
• We appreciate that the organisers made it mandatory for all participants signing up for the conference to agree to be governed by the Code of Conduct and Friendly Space Policy. There was a checkbox in the registration form to indicate this.
• However, participants at WCI and members of the organising teams seemed to be unaware of the CoC and friendly space policy. In view of this, it might make sense to give the CoC more visibility by installing banners and standees in different prominent parts of the venue. This is a standard practice in many large conferences across the globe.
• Announcement of the CoC before the start of the conference on the first day was not done. We considered the making of such an announcement important, especially because it was the first time that any Wikimedia event in India had introduced a CoC and friendly space policy.
• It was obvious that volunteers and support staff, such as videographers, photographers and security guards, were not aware of the existence of the Code of Conduct. Either that or they did not take the Code of Conduct seriously.
• There was no way for people who did not want to be photographed or videographed to indicate this, say, through the use of differently coloured lanyards or badges. The camera crew did not have any such briefing on respecting the speakers’ or participants privacy. The camera crews or and non-Wikimedian volunteers at the venue resisted when asked by us to stop recording. They eventually complied.
• We recommend that in the future the organisers brief all support staff, non-Wikimedian volunteers, third-party vendors and contractors about these dos and don'ts. In case there is any uncertainty or reluctance on the part of the third-parties about complying to privacy-related requests, there should be a defined Wikimedian to whom this matter could be referred. This should ideally be the organising team member/ Wikimedian volunteer with whom the responsibility of coordinating with the third-party in question is parked.
• The “cultural night” on the first day of the conference comprised of a fashion show, a song and dance section, and a skit about terrorism and the role of the army. At least one of the songs played there belongs to a genre of Bollywood music called “item number” which, by definition, sexually objectifies women. We are not aware of whether the planners of this performance were trying to strike a balance, but the performance consisted entirely of men wearing boxers dancing to this song.
• The organisers admittedly did not have control over the content of auxiliary events such as the cultural night, which is something the organising teams should avoid in the future.
  • Several violations were recorded during this event.
  • We appreciate the organisers’ decision to respond to our concerns.
  • We recommend that in future conferences, organisers ensure that they have knowledge of the content of events. Also, a provision to cancel any events that fail to adhere to the Code of Conduct.
• Members of complaints committee should be as uninvested in the conference as possible in order to maintain the neutral and nonpartisan nature of the committee. It is thus advisable to not perform roles such as workshop coordinators, facilitators, speakers and members of the organising team. This is one of our lessons.
• Going forward we need a framework in terms of the phrasing required for handling violations and making public statements/ announcements about them. The statements should be framed in a way that does not put any group or individual in a vulnerable position, especially if public announcements for the event participants are involved.
• Despite the public calls on the mailing list and the process of public review of the CoC, there were no signups for the Response Team. This could be linked to the lack of knowledge and understanding of the duties. Hence, we recommend that trainings be organised for community members to do enable such work in the future
• While carrying out work of this nature it is very easy to be in a situation of distress, unless there are adequate support systems for the team to lean on. We recommend building these support systems in the organising teams and in the Foundation.