On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:34 AM effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Thank you Stella,
Thank you Lodewijk for voicing a critical perspective. Hope you do not mind
me adding a few points inline.
Thank you for sharing, I'm looking forward to an
evaluation of how this
vote was executed, so that we can use these methods for more
topics/decisions in a constructive way. I'm pleased to see how the process
has seen various types of community engagement, and this seems a good step
in the right direction. I guess it's hard to expect more turnout than this.
I think turnout could have been much better at least in smaller language
communities. From the experience in the projects I am active in there was a
lack of targeted outreach and proactive work, which rendered the whole
process super Meta. Doing text translations and putting notices is neither
enough nor a good way to communicate complexity and urgency to those most
in need of UCoC. New users who joined sub-ideal wikis (not just very toxic)
could not meet voting criteria as easily, though the document was mostly to
address their most basic needs.
(sidenote: the fact that this announcement is being made by a WMF staff
member probably means that this process is less
community driven than I
thought. )
For a fundamental document like this, I'm surprised to see that there is
40+% opposition. Is there a good understanding of what in the UCoC is
causing so much opposition?
Not surprised as vocal critics were constantly present in the
process...their critique was only partly addressed and of course there is
prevailance with older Wikipedians not to change (much) and let alone fast
+ top down.
I'm asking, because this is supposed to be a
universal code, and even if
this opposition was randomly distributed in our communities, it would be
quite likely that there is a meaningful number of communities where there
would be a majority against, if we would split up the vote by community. In
such a case, I imagine that understanding the reasons why people are
against, and whether something can be done to mitigate this (or that any
universal document could likely meet similar opposition) is the least we
could be expected to attempt.
The construction of vote procedure did not allow for partial support (one I
would also prefer myself) but only binary + comment.
This is suboptimal for lengthy documents and elaborate (but suboptimal)
processes.
Warm regards,
Z. Blace
Warmly,
Lodewijk
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:32 PM Stella Ng <sng(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello All,
We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians who participated in the
recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines>.
At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review
of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on
Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
-
58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
-
Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
-
Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to
review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are
automatically complete.
From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments
provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The
Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their
consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and
examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further
refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki
and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for
revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the
voter’s responses.
In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project
team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of
these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C
Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting
conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to
be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.
Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement
guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively
work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as
presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways
over the last year.
Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of
the Enforcement Guidelines.
Regards,
Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team
Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org