Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Opinion

← Back to Opinion

Discuss this story

• This essay was originally written for a non-Wikimedia context, and it really shows. The issues it deals with are not the ones we have. We already have well-established sets of policies regarding appropriate conduct. The relevant dispute is about unhelpful overreach by one of our support organizations into an area they don't know much about.
  (Why does it seem like the WMF is sometimes trying to transplant conflicts other groups are having, even when they don't make conceptual sense?) --Yair rand (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• I also feel that this essay, while not unreasonable (if not necessarily correct) within its bounds, is putting a lot of effort into justifying points that aren't the primary issues at hand. It doesn't cover the concerns that enforcement may take, such as the accused not knowing 100% of the evidence against them even in non-extreme cases. It doesn't discuss the fact that while we have "a Community", that community is extremely diverse, with over 300 languages, nearly 200 countries, and that a "UCOC" is therefore going to be an inherently blunt tool. To give a single example, the pronoun bit of the UCOC, while potentially controversial in some senses in en-wiki, has real issues with fr-wiki and ru-wiki because of the nature of their languages. It doesn't cover the fact that the WMF shouldn't be a source body for it, nor does it mention the ratification issue. This means that the essay is not particularly wrong, but seems likely to struggle to convince many to support the UCOC who weren't already inclined to do so. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nosebagbear: As I said below, the intent was not well articulated, but yes I think we're on the same page. There are concerns with the specific text of the UCC as well as whether and how to incorporate enforcement mechanisms. The goal was not to persuade opinions on particular text or plans, but rather make the wider case that a centrally-organized code of conduct can be a good thing even in healthy communities. There are a lot of specifics, and as you (and others) rightly point out, the analogy of the piece breaks down the more specifics we consider. I didn't intend this to be the One Essay to Rule Them All; I hoped it would get people thinking critically about the situation and draw more attention to ongoing discussions. I'd like to see more pieces in the Signpost consider some specific issues, and while this one may not have gone oover as well as I had hoped, at least it sets a low bar for those who want to write more narrowly-tailored essays. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• I regret that "unhelpful overreach" is a fair summary. Every time I read something like this reminds me that control of our creation has been seized from the Wikipedia community. I fear that I've become an unpaid WMF intern who should stop being taken for a mug and do something more valued. As for the peripheral issues: Wikimedia foundation ... provide you money, we give you our name. Really? How does WMF's income from people and organisations who donate because of Wikipedia compare with the amount returned to Wikipedia? Which of the two has plans to rebrand itself by appropriating the other's name? Certes (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Has everyone forgotten WP:FRAM? Firestar464 (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "This essay is adapted..." is an understatement. You copied and pasted the essay, replaced stuff with references to Wikipedia (often not entirely, like your anecdote about your experience managing PyCon 2015 or how people thanked you for "showing me you care, and that you are thinking of me"), and threw in some factoids and blase paragraphs. You know what the most important thing underlying our civility policy is? Respect for other editors. I did not feel the least bit respected when I saw this linked on my talk page. I feel like if you actually respected us as editors and readers of the signpost you'd write an original essay specifically for Wikimedia (or better yet the English Wikipedia). Or at least put in a little more effort into editing this essay; otherwise why should anyone put the effort into reading it?

We need to have workshops, we need to be more inviting. We need to lower the barrier of entry of contribution. We need to make safe havens for those who want to contribute but who are scared and intimidated by the status quo. This includes men, women—everyone."

We've been doing this for years. We have endless amounts of workshops for diversity or specific subjects or just general wikipedia editing. Saying "we need to have workshops" feels like a slap in the face. Then there's some vague lines about how "we need to lower the barrier of entry of contribution" and how "we need to make safe havens". Why do you think VisualEditor exists and there's so much effort put into improving it? Why do you think we have the WP:TEAHOUSE? Sure, you could probably write something about how we need to improve on our existing systemes and how VisualEditor needs to support templates better or how more workshops are needed in non-Western countries but you didn't because it's easier to just copy and paste what some guy said for a totally different organization back in 2015 and not bother to make any substantial changes to it.

It's also hilarious how the essay constantly operates under the assumption that we have no code of conduct or any rules regarding conduct whatsoever. Like we don't have WP:CIVILITY or WP:AGF or WP:COURTESY or WP:BITE. Or like WMF events don't already have a code of conduct at meta:Friendly space policies.

Additionally, for what it's worth, I bet if an admin actually did post porn on the main page they wouldn't necessarily get indeff'd for long from Wikipedia. There's a decent chance the admeme could just say "lol I got hacked sorry guys" and WP:SUPERMARIO outta the block.

"I know. Honestly, I do. Except for minor incidents that I recall, the English Wikipedia has largely been free of issues. Every meetup, conference, etc I have been to has been filled with nice, kind people and largely jerk-free. This is a testament to the community as a whole."

I'm going to assume that you included this by accident and that you didn't actually read your own essay and think "yep, there hasn't really been any major behavioural issues on enwiki". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: I'm sorry if you feel personally disrespected, obviously that wasn't my goal. In the preface, I tried to be clear about the goal of this work: "the piece has been edited to reflect the parallels between the concerns then and those of the Wikimedia community now." The goal was not to write an exhaustive policy proposal or reproduce the research done by the foundation on these issues. So yes, this piece utterly fails as an essay arguing for the UCC on its own merits. I tried to make clear that that was not the goal, but it seems I could have explained that better.

Secondly, the minimal changes were an intentional choice. The goal was to prompt the reader to consider the parallels between the Python community Noller wrote about and the wiki community we currently have, so I wanted to keep as much of the source material intact so that the reader can make those parallels themselves. I could have just asked the Signpost to run the original essay verbatim, but I also wanted to take advantage of the unique medium provided by the wiki software and license. Collaboratively written essays are not uncommon around here (check out any policy page) and while not every edit changes the content of the essay entirely, the collaboration can take the form of changing anecdotes, examples, and phrasing to better reflect the contemporary readership. The goal was to use bricolage to evoke new insights by tinkering with existing media, but clearly it could have been done better.

Finally, to touch on your last point, you're coming from a completely different perspective than the one the essay was writing for. If you read this already believing the community is a cesspool then of course you're going to miss the point. The essay contains the following line which was pull quoted: "If we're all chill cool people, and nothing bad has happened, why have [a code of conduct]?" The essay is addressing people who believe the first part of the conditional. If you don't believe "we're all chill cool people, and nothing bad has happened" then the essay, quite explicitly, isn't addressing you. Whether that is a reasonable belief is debatable, but of course you're going to be unsatisfied by an argument when you reject one of the core assumptions.

Regardless, the criticism is well taken: the choices I made did not convey the intent I had hoped. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying your goal was wrong or that it's wrong to remix an essay to try to make it apply to the Wikipedia community. You're right a lot of our essays are written collaboratively and I imagine it could hypothetically be possible to remix an existing essay and apply it to Wikipedia. I would say you succeeded in prompting me to consider the parallels between the Python community back in 2012 and the English Wikipedia community. The problem is that those parallels simply don't exist beyond Wikipedia and Python both being from the wider free knowledge/FOSS community (in a sense) and both having the general attitude of being a meritocracy (kind of) and having the problem that oftentimes contributors are just those who are able to stick around and fight for a while. That and some of the "why the foundation" section (aside from the part about business sense). But beyond that the similarities end and the truth is that Wikimedia is such a colossal beast of a organization with so many distinct projects with differing requirements or necessities that it's a sui generis organization in the FOSS community. Many of the points in this essay simply aren't applicable to the English Wikipedia. I didn't mean for my comments to imply that this community is a cesspool but come on nobody who's been here for a while can seriously believe that we haven't had any issues. Look at WP:AN/I for just an endless stream of behavioural issues 24/7 that fills over a thousand pages of archives. If you want the "heavy-hitter" bigname Wikipedians go look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/All for an admin who was literally deadminned last month for behavioural issues. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries, it's not my first tough review. The flipside of drawing parallels is also identifying disconnects. You name some very substantial similarities: shared beliefs in meritocracy, shared FOSS ideology, major volunteer workforce loosely organized underneath an umbrella legal entity. Leaving aside whether they're few or many, they also highlight major differences. Others on this page have pointed out a lot of them---I think Nosebagbear did a good job of that above. You also point out the difference in number or scale of issues. The line you brought up wasn't lost on me, but I kept it because it unsettles a more pessimistic narrative. Obviously I know of the major incidents, but how major were they? Unlike the Scots Wikipedia, we never discovered that our content was gibberish. Unlike other wikis, we've never had global requests for all or most of our sysops to be removed. It's not to minimize the severity of our incidents, but to try and consider how someone could look at our wiki and be optimistic.

The point of editing it like I did was because not only did it make the similarities more obvious, it makes the differences more obvious too. The places where the analogy doesn't work or where the specifics don't match become more jarring precisely because they break the analogical thread. I wanted people to think not only about what Wikimedia is but also what it's not, and to prompt readers to think about those aspects in new ways through literary collage and juxtaposition. Even the less charitable responses show that it prompted people to consider what defines "the community"; I just did a bad job making clear to the reader that this wasn't meant to be a traditional essay. You did say it best: "adapted" is an understatement and I think people would have responded better if that were more accurate. Don't go full gonzo, got it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes:

Secondly, the minimal changes were an intentional choice. The goal was to prompt the reader to consider the parallels between the Python community Noller wrote about and the wiki community we currently have, so I wanted to keep as much of the source material intact so that the reader can make those parallels themselves. I could have just asked the Signpost to run the original essay verbatim

...And you should have, full stop. Sorry, but by (poorly-)adapting the essay — which based on how you explain it was your goal, to have it not be a good fit for the Wikipedia community in terms of specifics of issues and concerns — by maladapting it to sound like it's about Wikipedia while being about something completely different, you managed to also rob it of whatever value the original, unaltered essay might've had, as an example/analogy/food-for-thought. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: If you're going to give me unsolicited advice on how to improve my writing, at least understand the literary devices I've described. If you want to do something other than condescend, I recommend learning about pastiche, intertextuality, and the 2010 essay on the topic Reality Hunger. If you still don't understand, the deconstruction framework might help you understand how dialectics can create symbols that convey contradictory ideas simultaneously; you might also find the history of gonzo journalism and the New Journalism movement useful context. Of course, why learn about creative non-fiction when you can give people advice on stuff you've only been thinking about for a couple minutes? I appreciate your perspective on whether I got the response I wanted, but I couldn't care less about your opinions on what I should write. If you would have done it differently, then go do it—this is a wiki and the content is freely licensed. That, of course, would be harder than just complaining about how others do things. Food for thought. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Explaining after the fact the intentions behind your essay is a questionable justification; these ideas should probably be communicated within the text of the essay which judging by the reactions of the people reading it was not done. It also seems incompatible to both advocate for judging the essay based on the intentions of the author (you) while also advocating for a deconstructivist (?) view on literature; one often based around the idea that authorial intent is irrelevant to judging a work. It also comes off as someone trying to cover for their mistakes after the fact rather than admitting they probably messed up in a few places. Are you really claiming that leaving in sentences like "I have the emails and phone calls thanking me and the PyCon team for the Code of Conduct to show it." or "For PyCon 2013 I was asked by no less than four different sponsors if I had a Code of Conduct / Anti-harassment guide in place. " was intentional?

If so, I'd like to end this by saying that "to be fair, it takes a VERY high IQ to understand a Wugapodes signpost essay..." Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes, every time I see the words "intertextuality", or "deconstruction" -- or "dialectics" outside of a Marxist context -- I sense a little bit of someone's soul has just died. -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I've generally found you to be pretty thoughtful, but I think this should have been written from scratch, rather than trying to (rather poorly) adapt something from somewhere else by changing some words. To start with, the English Wikipedia had a code of conduct long before Python did. And that's why you're seeing pushback against the "UCOC" here—we already have our own code of conduct, developed by our own community through long experience, and with our own processes for updating and modifying it if need be. We don't need any advice from Python, thanks, but maybe they could have taken some from us. And also, the WMF uses Wikipedia's name, not the other way around. Wikipedia existed first, and founded the WMF. It does not belong to the WMF, and they are not in charge of it or some type of controlling authority. And they'd do well to remember that. Now, that being said, there might still be some use for such a framework for smaller and less-established projects, but trying to force it onto projects that already have well-developed policies and enforcement mechanisms, developed with the input of thousands of people based upon countless man-years of experience, will cause nothing but grief. We don't need anyone from a San Francisco office telling us how to run things; we've already figured that out, thanks very much. Their job is to keep the lights on and the servers humming, and that's it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Firstly, Wikipedia, the trademark, does belong to the WMF (not the other way around). If you scroll to the bottom of this page, you will see "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc". We can fork the project, but the name "Wikipedia" stays behind with the Foundation. So we can yell about who owns whom until we're blue in the face, but philosophical beliefs aren't going to help much when the trademark paperwork comes out. Secondly, your point that a UCC "will cause nothing but grief" is pulled out of thin air. Why? The essay argues that even in a community with no problems, having a centralized body implement a code of conduct is a net positive (see sections "But Everyone is nice, we've always been cool" and "So why the Foundation?"). You can disagree with that argument, but simply saying "no it isn't" won't get us far. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, like I said: We know from experience where that road leads. WMF is not competent to make day to day decisions about the operation of the projects; they're not there in the middle of it and could never hire enough people to be kept up to date on all the details. Projects are run by their editor communities, not by people in San Francisco who may or may not have ever made a single edit, according to our code of conduct, not whatever they cook up. (Note that that does not mean there isn't a code of conduct at all! So unlike Python, they can tell people "Yes, there most certainly is a code of conduct for the English Wikipedia", and have that be 100% truthful, even in the absence of the UCOC.) And while the WMF may legally own the trademark—well, I won't put lengthy Shakespeare quotes here, but people do not come here to check out the puzzle globe, even though it is a neat logo and I have always liked it. They come here for the encyclopedia. And that, we own, we maintain, and we can stop doing so and move it elsewhere. Obviously, that is not a desirable outcome, but well, the possibility of Framgate 2 is not a desirable outcome either. Once was quite enough there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I get that it's rhetorical, but railing against San Francisco reflects your imagination and not reality. The WMF board that voted on the UCC had members from Israel, Poland, Argentina, and Ukraine. Most of the board isn't even in San Francisco. Like I said, I get that it's meant to drive home the point, but it's a completely inaccurate way of depicting the WMF. It also is not a good idea to invite the comparison. "San Francisco" is useful because it makes the WMF seem like a group of out-of-touch elites in a monoculture​ making decisions for large and diverse groups of workers (see "urban elites​"). Meanwhile, you are raving about how the English Wikipedia owns the whole WMF. There are people in this world who don't read or write English. Many of them contribute to WMF projects. This number has been growing. If you want an example of out-of-touch elites making decisions for a vast and diverse group of people, how you described the English Wikipedia would be a good one.

You also seem to misunderstand how community forks go. Sure, people come for the encyclopedia, but much of that has been built. Since everything is irrevocably CC By-SA licensed, the 6 million articles already written will stick around. So they've got trademark and the content, unless there is a complete community exodus they will also have maintainers. Those maintainers will still call themselves Wikipedians, and the organizations trying to recruit new editors will keep pumping new Wikipedians to Wikipedia. Meanwhile CitizendiumTwo is trying to convince Google to rewrite their software to pull from them and not EnWiki or Wikidata.

All of that because T&S overstepped once? Because we want to avoid them doing it a second time (nevermind our still growing list of long-standing hoaxes​)? They handle requests other than TheBigOne, and sometimes, dare I say it, they make the right call! All of this is moot, of course, since we're still deciding how projects and the foundation will handle enforcement so the foundation is currently, actively seeking your input on how to craft this so that another Fram situation can be avoided. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a shame we can't vote to distance ourselves from the WMF in the same way the author speculates the WMF could be "forced" to distance itself from the entity that generates its content and (by extension) its revenue. Intothatdarkness 13:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

We can vote to write a letter which may or may not be read. If all else fails, LibreOffice voted with its feet when the masters of OpenOffice.org became less benevolent. I hope Wikipedia is not forced down a similar route, but it is an option. Certes (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

True. I must say, though, that I'm finding the tone of some of the author's responses here interesting. Intothatdarkness 14:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just one more reason Wikipedia (the generator of WMF's money and reason-for-being) needs a paid Wikipedia ombudsman working each shift in-office at WMF (virtual or real office). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• For starters, half of this piece seems to think that the importance of the code lies in its ability to "signal" group expectations (virtue signaling?). Do our current policies and guidelines not do that, and in what way would the code do it better? Simply by being WMF-endorsed and not merely community-endorsed?

Secondly: A code of conduct is [...] not there to take away your rights [...] It's there to show everyone what is not acceptable behavior, and to show what repercussions there are if anyone violates this behavior. I'd like to reiterate that we already have rules and behavioral expectations. I'd also like to point at out that universal codes, constitutions, charters etc. are not intrinsically incapable of taking away rights, so the assertion means little. To be suspicious of WMF's decision to go for this "legitimizing" strategy after the community accused them of overreach during the FRAMBAN does not mean I support harassment. It means I support fair investigation and fair punishment for alleged instances of harassment. The WMF has given itself (community consultation doesn't matter, the code was coming whether we wanted it to or not) all this power to enforce the rules unilaterally, and for what good? FRAMBAN demonstrates they aren't quite sure what to do with that power.

Thirdly: In closing, all I can say is this—no one is trying to be a fascist Actually yes, the crowd that took over Croatian Wikipedia is trying very hard to be fascist, and only a few months ago has the WMF actually bothered trying to do something about it. Sadly, I think that the UCOC will only be used to address such dumpster fire areas as those as an afterthought, when those should be the primary cases.

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I fail to understand how this UCC is better than the Wikipedia:Five pillars. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Only because it came from the WMF. Intothatdarkness 22:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  For projects not covered by the five pillars, the UCC may be better than what they have. The mistake may be to impose the proposed code universally, rather than making it a fallback for projects lacking such principles. Certes (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• The UCC won't work if it isn't accepted by all WM communities. If such rules are imposed directly by the WMF without any community vote or even a survey, it will just worsen all the tensions. Golmore ^! 09:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Like the Code of Conduct itself, this essay is a well intentioned effort that fails extremely badly. One point where I agree with the author is that the Wikimedia Foundation is indeed the entity in legal possession of the "Wikipedia" trademark. I fear that the Foundation is so pathologically dysfunctional that we will eventually reach a point where there is consensus for us to expel the Foundation from the movement and seek new hosting. In that event I expect the Foundation will wage a life-and-death fight to hold on to the Wikipedia trademark, and I expect they will lose that fight. If necessary community consensus can put a banner on every page telling everyone to stop donating. In under an hour it will be broadcast live on CNN, and a top story in every major news media planetwide. The Foundation's only meaningful assets are the goodwill of the donating-public towards the Wikipedia-trademark, and the goodwill of the community. The latter is already at toxic levels. Waging a nuclear war against community consensus would basically be a suicide note by the Foundation. Alsee (talk) 08:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Codes of conduct are never well-meaning. They are merely a tool to silence those of different opinions. The clique in charge will always find something you said or did, and make it match the vaguely worded rules. This Ayn Rand quote comes to mind: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." ---177.208.184.216 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• In closing, all I can say is this—no one is trying to be a fascist, or a nanny state this is gaslighting a la Nineteen Eighty-Four. Keep going down the Marxism rabbit hole, I am sure nothing bad will happen. 2601:602:9200:1310:F073:19BA:B83E:A7FF (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)