We know the “trust and safety” group is massively underqualified. Not only that, but when they have tried to protect people in the past (*cough* Framgate), the board of trustees has just pulled the rug out from under them.
Harassment is now being handled by arbcom. And as someone recently said, “Anyone proposing to send anything to Arbcom right now must be drunk.” The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Who would want to be a manager under those circumstances. No wonder they have all gone AWOL.
So what is going on with “trust and safety”? They have lost their alliance with line management, as well as the board. At this point they have two choices for career survival. They could throw their weight to the affiliates – their traditional allies – and hope the “strategy process” gives them some influence, although it is being said that the new Chief of Staff is trying to squelch that. Or they can throw the affiliates under the bus and make an alliance with the Dark Side. The signs are that this is exactly what they are now doing.
So no, “trust and safety” cannot be trusted. And they will not protect you.
They are hiring an actual manager of an anti-harassment program. Sydney Poore, of Trust & Safety, posted it to the Facebook Wikipedia Weekly group back on Oct. 3.
This seems kind of important. In every strategy session I have either been in or heard about, the number one priority is harassment. Until this problem is solved, multiple groups have concluded, progress cannot be made in other areas.
So what is this harassment program about? They must be trying to recruit someone with specialized expertise, and assign it to one of the top managers, right?
“The Lead Program Manager, Anti-Harassment will report to the Lead Manager, Trust and Safety.”
Wonder if they are planning to discuss the Framban during the hiring process.
Because Trust & Safety got their butts kicked by arbcom.
Not even the Board of Trustees is willing to support anti-harassment. They could have said yes, we support the staff. There would have been some fuss from the likes of Kudpung, Jehochman, and the Manchester panty-sniffers, but it would have blown over and the people who were really interested in building an encyclopedia would have stayed. The place would have been better for it.
But they blinked.
Because harassment is good for business.
It pits the girls against the boys. It writes headlines. It gets entire Wikiprojects going. And the donations just keep pouring in.
So what kind of expertise are looking for in this new manager?
Experience leading technical programs in mature platform environments
3+ years experience managing the release of customer-facing software from concept to production
Oh goody, more technical solutions. What was it last time? More blocking tools for admins, who refuse to follow the blocking policy? And how is that harassment problem coming along? What happened to the last manager?
Oh dear, that would be Trevor, who quietly snuck out the back door after cleaning out his desk and clearing his user page. I wonder if he is still holed up in his Bat Cave. I do hope he recovers from his year at Wikipedia.
I am only one,
But still I am one.
I cannot do everything,
But still I can do something;
And because I cannot do everything,
I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.
The religious principle of removing harm from the world is not confined to one religion.
In some Protestant traditions, the reaction to Darwinism led theology away from biblical literalism. At the same time there there arose the concept of creating a paradise on earth, and for women, the tradition of the Protestant nun, as exemplified by Jane Addams’ Hull House.
Muslims may tell you that if you see a piece of broken glass in the middle of the street, there is a religious obligation to remove it, so someone does not get a tire puncture.
In the Jewish tradition, the principle is Tikkun Olam, or “repairing the world”.
You are not obligated to finish the work; neither are you free to desist from it.
הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא עָלֶיךָ הַמְּלָאכָה לִגְמֹר, וְלֹא אַתָּה בֶן חוֹרִין לִבָּטֵל מִמֶּנָּה.
-Rabbi Tarfon, Pirke Avot 2:21
Pirkei Avot is part of theMishnah, the first text of the Jewish oral law. The Misnah is primarilly a set of short statements or aphorisms, usually attributed to first century rabbis. But while the rest of the Mishnah concerns itself with case law, the Pirkei Avot expresses a series of ethical principles behind the legal opinions.
According to one religious scholar: “I would like to maintain a strict distinction between tzedakah, the maintenance of the poor within a system of social welfare, and tzedakah u’mishpat and tikkun olam, which seek to reform institutional practices in society. Tikkun Olam – “repairing the world” – …usually refers not only to relief work such as gemilut hesed – emergency care for the ill and feeding the hungry after a hurricane – but also to fixing the socioeconomic system, often requiring sustained political and judicial activism.
When it comes to the world of Wikipedia, sometimes it is all too easy to let compassion fatigue set in, and give up completely. Because what is really needed is not just removing one bully or one admin gone amok, it is a repair of the whole system. One more aphorism then:
We have offended against thy holy laws.
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done;
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done;
–1928 Book of Common Prayer
Oh this is good, I must do a closer reading when I have time.
It is a research in progress.
…why do people complain;…. I have been learning how complaint means committing yourself, your time, your energy, your being, to a course of action that often leads you away from the work you want to do even if you complain in order to do the work you want to do (as many do).
Oh yes indeedy.
A formal complaint can lead you into the shadowy corners of an institution, meeting rooms, corridors; buildings you did not have any reason to enter before become where you go; what you know. We can learn from this: how trying to address an institutional problem often means inhabiting the institution all the more (1). Inhabitance can involve re-entry: you re-enter the institution through the back door; you find out about doors, secret doors, trap-doors: how you can be shut out; how you can be shut in. You learn about processes, procedures, policies, you learn to point out what they fail to do, pointing to, pointing out; you fill in more and more forms; forms become norms; files become futures; filing cabinets, graves.
By this it is meant a “complaint graveyard”, but one does sometimes catch glimpses of darker things hidden…
The criticism sites are nothing more than a collection of “back doors”.
A burial is not only where you might end up, the last stop in a sorry tale, a destination; burials can be evoked as a potential before you even start. Warnings evoke burials: you are warned that a complaint would mean career suicide, the end of a line; making a complaint as becoming a ghost.
You are also warned that you will be buried by the process.
Forty people have been interviewed so far.
…institutional machinery; the clunk, clunk, of how complaints are stopped from getting through or getting out as the sound of institutions at work. …. It is those who try to get through who teach us about stoppages. And so: in listening to stories of stoppages and blockages, I am also hearing about the work that some – let’s call them the complainers – are prepared to do; despite the walls they come up against, because of the walls they come up against…..I can hear the strain, the physical effort, the wear and tear; I can hear how hard some are willing to push, because they are not willing to give up or to give in.
The language is not yet polished, it has a draft feel to it, a sort of stream of consciousness, but you can see the picture emerging…
Perhaps the effort to stop some ways of acting is experienced by those who are acting in such ways as punishment in the sense of potentially depriving them of what it is that they want…. Trying to stop harassing and bullying behaviours (by describing such behaviours as harassing or bullying) is experienced as depriving some of their freedom as well as what they assume as their entitlement.
Yes this is about Kumioko, it is about Fram, it is about Wikipediocracy and their willingness to partner with those who look for and bully the least powerful in the Wikipedia food chain.
A complaint can be how you live with yourself because a complaint is an attempt to address what is wrong, not to cope with something; not to let it happen; not to let it keep happening. You make a complaint as a way of doing something. And so: a complaint can be a way of not doing nothing…. You will not just leave the problem behind you by not complaining (even if a complaint leads many to leave).
In past work I have focused more on how the costs of complaining are made high. These costs can be about warnings as well as punishments: you are warned you will be punished; punishments are often used as warnings to other would-be complainers. There is no doubt: complaint is made costly. From the question, why complain, I am learning about the costs of not complaining.
One student who talked to me about a series of complaints about harassment and bullying, none of which got anywhere, gave an answer to why complain by leaving with a sense of hope: “You know the process is broken, but still you know you must do it, because if you don’t, more falls to the wayside. So it’s like a painful repetitive cycle where you do what you know is right, knowing it may not make a difference at that time, but you always hope, you always have that hope, that maybe because I did this, it paves the way for something else. I think that is why I keep doing it: because I have hope.
This tweet, picked out of Katherine’s Twitter feed, is about the MIT/Joi Ito/Jeffrey Epstein scandal, as well as Lawrence Lessig’s inexcusable defense of Ito (but not the underage girls who were sex-trafficked) (Lessig’s eccentric campaign for president was endorsed by Jimmy Wales), but it strikes a chord, about leaders, about choosing allies, about Framgate of course, and ultimately about trust, misplaced or otherwise.
How do you stop harassment without re-victimizing the harassed? Some things can only take place in private. So how are those decisions made, and who decides? Ultimately, without safeguards and review processes, it all boils down to trust. We are asked to trust decision-making that takes place in the dark, but who can you trust?
Arbcom? Trust & Safety? Or is it too early to place hope in the Strategy process, which represents a much broader swath of The Community than the band of brigands that has taken over Wikipedia’s inner city, and turned it into a rock-throwing slum.
The second piece, from Sucks:
So Fram is the kind of person, who attacks new products in their infancy, instead of helping out? The kind of person, who demotivates good-willing, hard-working contributors by criticizing the early issues, that are part of any new project, and unavoidable? Anybody who nurtured a project into adolescence knows this is part of the process, and respects the hard work behind what’s been achieved. It seems he has no such experience, and does not know what it takes to make it work.
This is about the new Fram bogpost on Wikipediocrazy. “Wikidata: Melania Trump was a ‘former sex worker and porn star’”. Quite obviously Fram does not understand what is going on with WikiData and is trying to turn back the clock to a day when WikiData didn’t exist. It was kind of weird though for Wikipediocracy to publish the thing after the Fram arbcom case started, and before it was closed. But this is not just about Fram, although Fram may be the most obvious example right now. It is about the way users are treated, the way that the inevitable problems that always surface are to be solved.
This huge philosophical difference, I think, can go a long way to explaining some of the WMF other controversial moves, for instance the Brill Lyle ban. Bril Lyle was also hugely critical of startup programs, not offering constructive criticism, but just trashing people who were trying something new, without much in terms of analysis or suggestions for the future.
And in the end, an organization that doesn’t try new programs and new ways of reaching people is going to die from lack of new blood. The old blood of course may try to find ways to keep its entrenched privilege and whatever small perks they have managed to hoard — the smaller the perk, the more cutthroat the competition. But if Wikimedia doesn’t find a way to give these new voices some breathing room, and figure out how to onboard them without taking casualties, they will eventually grind to a halt just from attrition, failure to adapt to changing circumstances, and reputational damage among those who are best placed and most inclined to lend their expertise.
No one yet seems to have pointed out the irony of Fram handling problems by getting rid of the person he disagreed with vs. T&S handling the Fram problem by getting rid of Fram.
And the arbitration committee has once again proved it is incapable of solving any of Wikipedia’s problems. This time they are about to deprecate the word “harassment“, which is an actual policy with a clear definition.
Because the word “harassment” spans a wide variety of types of behavior, and because this word as used off-wiki can carry serious legal and human-resources overtones, at times it may be better to describe allegedly problematic on-wiki behavior such as “wikihounding” with more specific terminology.
And they don’t say what kind of “more specific terminology” might be best utilized to protect their friends, and insulate them from the consequences of their “allegedly problematic” bullying. May I suggest “fluffy bunnies”.
And since this is your paper doll and coloring connection, here is your fluffy bunny mask, so you too can pretend to be an arbcom hat-collector and protect your harassing, er, “more specific terminology” friends. It’s not too early to start planning that Halloween costume!
If you watch the Wikimania videos, the closing ceremony looked serene. But apparently everyone was busy tweeting about the difference between civility and harassment.
Although Jimbo traditionally presents the awards, there was only one award this year, Wikipedian of the Year, to a woman wearing a Loujaint-shirt. The time allotted to the Jimbo speech was short this year. Wikipedia is a teenager now, and teenagers don’t like to listen to their parents.
But two things happened. Jimbo centered his comments on “civility”, quoting his remarks from other years. And Katherine’s remarks about “harassment” received a standing ovation.
So which is it, civility or harassment.
Civility is an old world concept. Civility is thought to be valuable because it promotes discourse and agreement. It is a gentlemanly virtue.
Traditional lady-virtues have more to do with appearances, wearing white gloves, clutching pearls, and avoiding politicized speech. Or perhaps avoiding speech entirely. But this is the 21st century, so not gonna happen.
So perhaps in some way this is a gendered discussion.
Framing it as “civility” is a way to gloss over what is really happening, and give dudes an excuse for behaving badly.
Should I say something about their images of scantily clad women?
Shall I say something about the value of blockchain?
Or maybe I should think of something nice to say about Everipedia, like the story of Fram and the Revenge of Sander.v.Ginkel, an academic who created articles about women athletes, until he was unfortunate enough to end up on Fram’s radar. And may I add, unfortunate for Wikipedia as well. But Everipedia was scraped from Wikipedia at a time before all these articles were mass deleted (by Fram, I have heard) over some link-rot technicality, so Sander.v.Ginkel’s articles are all alive and well–on the blockchain.
But this is not about Fram, or blockchain, or even the soul-crushing qualities of various projects.
This is about ME! ME! ME!
Guy Macon refers to me as a “low quality source”. Who is the Guy Macon person? I have never heard of him. Whoever he is, he has no less than 42 user boxes, one of which informs us that he is a “wikiogre”, someone who is “typically yet not always accurately depicted as large, hideous and manlike.” When someone tells you who they are, believe them. In any case, there is no such thing as “bad publicity”, and I accept the homage, even if it is low quality homage.
“I came here because I read about it on GenderDesk. My colleagues can decide if that makes my opinion less valid.” LOL. Originally posted by the nasty little Tsumikiria, but in an archived form so I wouldn’t get any linklove street-cred from it and later censored by Fae, who deleted huge chucks of it before saying in the deletion discussion that it didn’t have enough ref. Tsumikiria called it “canvassing” and “targeting Fae and me”. The same Tsumikiria who has now requested a user name change after having his Twitter account with all the anime child porn suspended. (see my comment at “Get the L out“. And oh, the article behind poor, poor “targeted” Tsumikiria’s Ero kawaii user box, with the pictures of children in underwear, is now a red link. It’s hard to imagine the naughty, naughty Fae censoring anything, but if he chooses to censor me, I must be doing something right. And I called the deletion discussion too, didn’t I. I now have the only version of the pre-deletion-spree Get the L Out article, as the whole thing was deleted and redirected to something else, thus losing the entire article history. Some day this article will be written again, and when it is, the algorithms will have have had a little experience with connecting the links.
This one on Wikipedia (now hatted, so it won’t turn up in an internal search) is only a “don’t care”, but I love it because it ranks me favorably against Wikipediocracy and other offsite criticism.
In case anyone can’t read that, someone (who seems to have a bit of street cred themselves) is voting to *include* me in the WP:FRAMBAN list of “off-wiki coverage”
So would you also include:
Reclaim the Net?…
No (forum), no (forum), no (forum), no (basically a forum), no (tweet), don’t care (blog), yes.
Kind of odd, thinking how spur of the moment it was, and how I just jotted it off in order to get back to what I was doing.
It had a huge amount of readership though, the spike was easily four times the readership of the previous day, and it has continued to this day. And most of it not from identifiable article links, it looks like they were just reading off the front page.
Also kinda funny how this Fram thing is generating so much attention, and that so many people consider it a watershed, or even dumpster-fire event, even though none of this is new. The only thing new here is that it was a partial and not global ban, and that it took place after the departure of Mr. Alexander, who having escaped the constant, and probably faked email spam, is now raking in the big bucks over on Twitter.
Over at Sucks, Crowsnest shows no signs of fatigue, as the Fram thread reaches 36 pages.
A few nuggets.
I wonder what percentage of the highly active Wikipedia community that inevitably dominates their instruments of self-government even understand what is meant by the following terms recently used by the Board…..
* toxic behaviors
* safe and respectful environment
* diverse voices
Is that really what they want to offer training on? I know Wikipedia is meant to be for everyone, but come on, anyone who needs training to understand these terms and how they relate to Wikipedia governance, they’re really not going to be capable of being an effective Administrator.
It is clear, training is not the answer. The problem, is wiki has far too many Administrators, and a good few users even higher up the food chain, who know precisely what these words mean, they just have no real interest in seeing them as strategic priorities.
Most of the wiki users and special the high productive are autistic as hell. And there they recruit there sysops and Arbs out of.
You can’t learn a elephant figure skating, it is again insane. It’s the same if I hire for my next project a bunch of color blind painters and if the mess everything up say I will train them.
This is not just hyperbole, we have highly placed volunteers (cough, Seraphimblade, aka Todd Allen cough), who are in charge of making and interpreting policy, who have actually been diagnosed with autism, Aspergers, or who claim to be “on the spectrum”.
More than even Fae, with his bondage fetish, Corbett seems to go out of his way to seek punishment. And Wikipedia’s “governance” system is tailor-made to keep punishing him over and over and over again, without ever putting him out of his misery. This reminds me of the story of the baby born prematurely who was put in intensive care, and had nurses thumping on his back with tiny toothbrushes to keep the lungs clear. Later, in childhood, the baby developed behavior problems and took every chance to do something that would result in getting hit, so as to reproduce that earlier pre-memory experience. Something profound must have happened to this Corbett guy, something that even he doesn’t remember. Or maybe sometimes kids take on responsibly for the stuff going on around them and think it’s all their fault, when it isn’t. Children often to not have a clear idea of boundaries, they do not understand they are not the same person as their parents, and have a separate existence –they think they are responsible for what someone else does, and end up in a guilt and punishment-seeking cycle of self-destruction. It is the problem of the adults to solve the adult problems and not put them as a burden on their children.
I have been hearing for some time now that Beestra was no longer an admin, but it didn’t come true until today. And not without pissing and moaning about Katherine and the board, and pinging several board members. But board member Pundit and former admin Boing! said Zebedee were unable to cajole him, and he is gone. Given his antics with his bot, he could very well have been Fram’s next target when the ban expires.
In spite of a prominent “Strike” message on his talk page, the error-prone Beetstra has dived right in at arbcom, micromanaging their process and misconfiguring a ping – having misspelled SilkTork’s user name, he merely corrects it without adding a new timestamp, which a ping must have in order to work.
Jehochman’s arbcom request targeting WMF staff
After his abortive attempt to build a case against Laura Hale, the smarmy Jehochman has filed a case request naming both Jan Essfeldt and Katherine Maher as “parties”. On Katherine’s talk page, Jehochman somewhat disingenuously mansplains to her that “Perhaps you will enjoy taking a close look at how the arbitration process works.” and admonishes her to “Please comment only in your own section.” What, are there no arbcom clerks about? Surely someone has developed a template to short-circuit this type of officiously condescending tripe. But he is probably too busy backchanneling with Bishonen and Worm that Turned.
What he fails to mention is that naming her and Jan as parties means Jehochman has placed them in a position where they can be sanctioned by arbcom, as well as Fram, using their infamous “boomerang”, placing arbcom in a position over the board of directors. Let’s see if the arbcom is willing to pick up that hot potato.
It is equally awkward that this wannabe Perry Mason has filed his show trial arbcom case request to conflict with the scheduled July 3 conference call between the WMF and arbcom.
In a nutshell, some of us want to edit, others want to use Wikipedia for dramah-dramah. Guess who is winning.