Jump to content

Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki

Redundant with Terms of Use?

How'd this not be redundant with Section 4 of the Terms of Use on refraining from certain activities (and behaviours)? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio:Thank you for your comment. Section 4 of Wikimedia Terms of Use does cover some behavioural guidelines along with content guidelines such as copyright infringement and paid contributions, however it is not a comprehensive list. It is very open to interpretation and not often applied as a guideline on wiki. The Universal Code of Conduct aims to help communities actually apply the section 4 of the Wikimedia Terms of Use by spelling out in more detail, what is covered by them and more focussed conduct guidelines. --NNair (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Would it not be more efficient to rewrite Section 4 to be more of a "Projects should have rules that enforce [x], support [y], etc..."? Vermont (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: Hi Vermont, interesting point. Any changes to the TOU will have to be approved by the legal team, and we’ll be working with them as this process progresses. A difficulty there is that the section might get lengthy, as language could drift towards legalese. Having a readable and concise TOU is important, so it might be best that the TOU references the UCoC rather than having it live there in full. We’ll let them know about this suggestion, and get their opinions on it.--NNair (WMF) (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Having a readable and concise UCoC is similarly important. I would hope that your vision for a UCoC is one that is more of a basis for how local conduct policies should look, rather than an attempt at removing all local conduct policies and replacing it with a global, English, UCoC.Vermont (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
^ Very much this. I hope WMF realizes that if they try to force a code of conduct that is written by themselves on the entire community, it will not go well. The community should really be taking the initiative on this matter. --Rschen7754 17:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a good direction I think. Similarly to how the Foundation put out a resolution that all projects should adopt a local policy that upholds basic principles with regard to living persons. GMGtalk 12:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Template:Rto The contents to be expected in the CoC are in big part already existing conduct policies and guidelines throughout the projects. However these rules are scattered, and hard to find, therefore unknown to many editors. I've spent the greater part of ca. two months to discover the policies and guidelines of enwiki, and I still find new essays and explanations to the rules. A CoC wouldn't impose rules much different from the already existing ones, and there was no mention of any local policies being replaced. The point of an UCoC is to collect in one place the basic conduct guidelines, in a "readable and concise" format, thus old and new users alike can read it and be aware of it. The awareness of these rules will possibly help the communities to call out and address conduct issues even before those escalate to sanctions, and also make us more mindful of our conduct. —Aron Man.🍂 hist🌾 18:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The TOU were written by, and belong to, the community. Even if changes also require Legal's approval, one can't make substantial changes to it without the community's consent. --Yair rand (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The BLP framework is something we have been looking at. It is definitely an applicable approach. Similarly, the UCoC is aiming to come up with a basic, minimum standard for behavioural guidelines, and the idea emphasizes the fact that projects with strong guidelines must be able to abide by and uphold their respective local behavioural policies. In terms of process, the Foundation aims to facilitate the process but the whole project exceedingly depends on the feedback and ideas from the community. We’re working on a more detailed outline/timeline for conversations that we’ll post here. --NNair (WMF) (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Already rejected

If nearly 50 editors randomly come across a proposal to ban the WMF from doing something, and every single one of them supports preventing the WMF from doing that thing, the WMF should probably not do that thing. If you try to push for it anyways, we will have a crisis on our hands, and anyone trying to do any productive work will despair as we yet again need hundreds of volunteers to try to stop the WMF from causing yet another catastrophe. --Yair rand (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of the open-source communities have adapted a Code-of-Conduct in recent years, with success. They had their own, difficult debates. Wikipedia is far behind these communities, in terms of civility, openness, constructive debate, and cooperation. The introduction of a CoC is a step forward, by discouraging unwholesome behaviors, that's so common in our online interactions. It is understandable, however, that some people, who haven't experienced the benefits of a CoC in a project, have fears about the application of new rules. I'm sure, after some time most of these people will find, that being mindful of our conduct, and following a CoC creates a more healthy community, where contributing is a more uplifting experience. — Aron M (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Aron M: Could you provide links to a few examples that of such CoCs in other online communities? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Nsk92: code of conduct Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Nsk92,Aron Manning https://meta.stackexchange.com/conduct for example. Vexations (talk)

The problem many perceive is not that the community might be healthier with a CoC, but that this initiative is coming from the "T&S team", who (by contract) are required to represent the interests of the WMF above all other considerations. Simply 'managing' the input from experienced volunteers who are actually the community that a CoC will be applied to, is not the same thing as seeing the WMF buy in to limiting their own behaviours as part of agreeing a volunteer driven, volunteer agreed, CoC.

The 100% supported vote linked above was for the board should create "terms of use" that the foundation has to comply with in their dealings with the communities. If WMF employees, contractors and board members were to start there, rather than engaging in an expensive programme of managing stakeholders in order to force a WMF view of the world on everyone else, that would be a super starting point that the community could be reassured about. Amongst other advantages it provides the starting principles for community governance of actions such as the undocumented and un-appeal-able global blocks of long standing unpaid project volunteers by anonymous WMF employees and contractors who have access to the WMF Office account. Not that this is an argument against WMF T&S taking "probably" justifiable actions, just that the community is way, way, overdue for a better governance process of WMF T&S that visibly respects our community shared values of transparency and openness.

Thanks -- (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The process this pre-consultation is about, would amend existing local rules with a globally unified 'code of conduct' (CoC). When in doubt, the CoC would supersede the local rules. None of the communities actively asked for it. Introduction of the CoC clearly interferes with the decision processes of the local projects. Preventing the WMF from this kind of engagements is at the heart of the 100% supported proposal. By extension, it would effectively prevent the WMF to roll out a universal code of conduct, let alone enforce such a set of rules.
The proposal can indeed be interpreted as a rejection of the CoC initiated by the WMF. Given the unambiguity of the vote I feel any engagement of the WMF against the spirit of the proposal would be a recipe for the next major project crisis.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT+ meeting minutes October 2019

Team LGBT+ discussed this proposal in its October meeting. The Wiki LGBT+ community has discussed conduct and misconduct in almost all of its meetings over the past few years and considers itself as a major stakeholder in any broad-reaching conduct proposal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Bluerasberry, thanks for showing up and letting us know about your discussions! We are aware that such discussions are happening in different places and are hoping to gather the input from them in the upcoming consultation about the Universal Code of Conduct. Actually we kickstarted some of those conversations with our session at Wikimania and we are trying start more of them. So we are definitely looking forward to hearing about your ideas and experiences! --CSteigenberger (WMF) (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Are we having a session about this in Boston next month? GMGtalk 12:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello @GreenMeansGo: @Bluerasberry:I'll be at WikiConference North America next month and will be available to have one on one meetings, and also to participate in an unconference session, too, about the UCoC. SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@SPoore (WMF): I will be at that event and see you then and there. I will take notes and report back to Wiki LGBT+. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What on earth

has the preamble of Constitution of India got to do with Universal values of Wikimedia communities? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi both, thanks for the feedback on the collage; we can look at some of the images for improvement.
@Winged Blades of Godric: The constitution of a democratic country represents people’s voices, people’s representation, and togetherness in diversity. It’s one thing that binds every citizen of a country together irrespective of their differences and cultural values. This aptly resonates with the concept of unity and universal values in our movement. Then why not include a picture of the preamble of the constitution of not only the biggest democracy but also the most culturally diverse country in the world to signify those values? With this picture, I was definitely not focussing on the ‘socialist’ part, but perhaps this one can replace the one that’s already there.
@Risker: I hear your concerns about the history of the Chiang Kai-shek square. I chose it because of how this square holds a sentimental significance for Taiwan as it is now the place where democracy is celebrated, rather than Chiang Kai-shek himself. But I can see how it could be read as divisive in terms of Chinese history.
If you have suggestions for new images, let me know. Best,--NNair (WMF) (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
See this map. No, India is not culturally tolerant. In general, I don't really see the point of promotional images for a UCoC, but if you really want one please use uncontroversial and globally relatable images. Vermont (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with WBG, Risker and Vermont, and I'm concerned with the direction this is taking. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with WBG, Risker, Vermont and MarcoAurelio. To avoid repetition, my lengthy thoughts on the crass insensitivity of the particular images chosen, the impracticality of trying to illustrate "universal values" with any kind of photograph, and the impossibility of a meaningful code of conduct without enforcing cultural imperialism of some kind, are on my en-wiki talk page. Iridescent (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, thank you for the inputs about the image. Please do note that the picture in question here is not the final representation of UCoC. And as I said earlier, we can look at more images for improvement. For that do share your suggestions about other pictures that in your view, better represent the values of the movement and are least controversial. I am looking forward to formulating something that’s widely accepted. --NNair (WMF) (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
NNair, are you Chickenwings10? Vermont (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
It's in the shape of a cross. There's really no image or set of images that accurately represent world values without offending someone, because there isn't a set of values shared globally that I think would accurately reflect the UCoC. Vermont (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean, it is (or at least has become) the quintessential secular ethical code. That this manuscript is shaped like a cross is historical accident. GMGtalk 21:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The cross shape may be an accident, our choosing it would not be, nor could we expect it to be perceived as an accident. WereSpielChequers (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
We're getting somewhat off-topic, but the cross shape is definitely not an accident but an intentional attempt to express continuity between Ancient Greek culture and Byzantine Orthodox Christianity. If we (a) need a CoC and (b) need an image to illustrate (both of which I—along with as far as I can tell virtually everyone not on the WMF payroll—strongly dispute), than I agree that it's a total no-brainer that religious imagery, national symbols, anything pertaining to political issues, or anything that a reasonable person could possibly interpret as such, are totally unacceptable. It's by design, not accident, that the logo of every WMF project is utterly bland.Iridescent (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
If you want to allude to the Hippocratic Oath, there are other images available, such as this one. -- Llywrch (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
But again, we're back to subconscious cultural bias. The entire concept of medical oaths, let alone the Hippocratic Oath in particular, is specific to particular cultures; in much of Africa, for instance, the entire concept is unknown, and even in the West there are relatively few jurisdictions where any form of oath is mandatory rather than voluntary. (Quick RS.) Finding common cultural reference points which have the same meaning to all readers on a global project really is harder than it looks.Iridescent (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean, as far as I am aware, the Hippocratic Oath has been endorsed and updated by the World Health Organization. But regardless, all this is probably just a distraction, and having any image at all is probably not remotely worth this level of debate. Something something en:BIKE. GMGtalk 13:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Getting severely off the point, but I think you're misremembering. The WHO is a UN project and would never try to enforce a US-specific concept like medical oaths, as it would provoke a global scandal. The (unrelated) World Medical Association, an international trade body for medical professionals, regularly suggests proposed codes of ethics (I assume the Declaration of Geneva is what you're thinking of), but none of them have any particularly wide acceptance. Even in the US, only about 75% of doctors take any kind of oath; if you tried to suggest to medical students at (e.g.) Cambridge University that they should be forced to swear an oath, they'd laugh in your face and politely escort you from the medical school.Iridescent (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Admittedly completely off topic banter at this point, but ... uhh ... [1] ... And how is a two thousand year old Greek oath a "US-specific concept"? And yes, oaths in general are an archaic concept that are rarely used, but I'm pretty sure we got that bit of tradition you you guys being a former colony an all. GMGtalk 17:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The difficulties of finding a suitable image may be a distraction, or they may be themselves a symbol of how it's not possible to have a "universal" one-size-fits-all approach to all cultures in the world. Nemo 07:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The point of questioning the image was manifold: First, it revealed certain biases on the part of the person/group posting it. Second, it illustrated that the same image/representation is perceived very differently between individuals and (likely) cultures. Third, it revealed the irony of trying to apply a uniform interpretation of acceptable behaviour across many different cultures. Finally, it illustrated that, despite the fact that English Wikipedians are constantly berated for behaving badly whenever we dare to step outside of our home project, the entire basis of the proposals and all of the research is based on the supposedly ineffective and unhelpful policies of English Wikipedians. This final point is not an exaggeration. Every international meeting I have attended, I have heard at great length how horrible English Wikipedia is or how nasty English Wikipedians are. And yet, the relevant research is comparing *every other project* to English Wikipedia, and finding *those projects* deficient. I'd say there's some bias here, yes. Risker (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Universal - total universal

Wenn ich das Wort universal richtig verstehe, dann heißt es sowas wie "allgemein" oder "weltweit". ... Wenn das ernst gemeint ist, dann bin ich ja froh, dass es auch in der universal sprache geschrieben wurde und so von jedem auf dieser Welt verstanden wird. Da braucht man es dann auch nicht übersetzen, versteht ja jeder ... Und da Sarkasmus nicht von jedem verstanden wird nochmal deutlich: Es ist arrogant/überheblich/eine Frechheit für eine angeblich "globales" Bewegung eine verbindliches regelwerk einführen zu wollen und das nur in einer einzigen Sprache anzubieten. ... AGF? Das wäre dann wohl: sorry, aber WMF ist einfach zu dumm oder das "Wiki" im Namen heißt nicht, dass das beauftragen von Übersetzern nicht viele Jahr dauern kann ...Sicherlich Post 13:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Verstehe ich das richtig, dass Du durchaus für einen solchen globalen Code of Conduct wärest, sofern er in allen Projektsprachen vorhanden wäre?--Schreibvieh (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Vielmehr ist es so: Wenn etwas, was von "oben" in "wrong language" ankommt, so wird das nicht ernst genommen bzw. fürs Erste mal abgelehnt. Man möchte ja erst mal verstehen, worum es eigentlich überhaupt geht. Geht ja in Unternehmen auch so. Wenn der CEO im DACH-Raum in einem DACH-Unternehmen was in Englisch brabbelt bzw. schreibt, so nehmen die Angestellten das Gebrabbel nicht ernst. Und am Schluss wird es so sein: Der CEO jammert über mangelnde Engagement seiner Untergebenen, die folgen ja seinen Anweisungen nicht. Und tut das in Klartext in Deutsch seinen Angestellten kund. Und die Angestellten so: Hä? Das hören wir jetzt zum ersten Mal. Und rebellieren erst recht. Ist menschlich. Und genau das gilt es zu berücksichtigen.
D.h. das gleich direkt "in Klartext in Deutsch" weitergeben. Also nicht voller Geschwurbel, wie beim Kurier-Artikel. Also so: "Wir wollen kein Autorenschwund mehr. Also neue Regeln. Dies sollen für alle Wikipedias gelten. Beispielsweise: 'Mobbingverbot' oder 'kein Missbrauch der Wikipedia'. Du kannst bei den Regeln mitdiskutieren." (das fasst den Kuriertext einigermassen zusammen). --Filzstift (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Schreibvieh: nein, ich habe keine Meinung dazu. Ich bin aber der Meinung, dass wenn man etwas global als verbindlich vorschreiben will, dass es auch in den Sprachen vorliegen muss. Und wenn es eine Diskussion dazu geben soll, dass muss mindestens in den wichtigsten Sprachen vorliegen. Hier liegt es, im typischen WMF-Stil, nur in englisch vor. ...Sicherlich Post 16:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Da hast Du völlig recht.--Schreibvieh (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

+1 Strongly agree. This complete proposal and consultation process should be made available in at least the most common "world languages". The potential impact of global Wikimedia Codes of Conduct is huge; in case of violations of these codes we will be right back to discussing office actions and user bans. I ask the Foundation to provide access to this discussion to all or most communities by making translations available. --Martina Nolte (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Bitte denkt daran, dass es sich hier um die Ankündigung eine Projektes handelt, das noch in einer frühen Planungsphase ist. Aktuell kontaktieren wir Communities rund um die Welt in ihren jeweiligen Sprachen, um sie überhaupt darauf aufmerksam zu machen. Wir sind darauf vorbereitet, Kommentare und Fragen in den Sprachen anzunehmen, in denen die Menschen sich wohl fühlen hier zu kommunizieren. Als nächsten Schritt haben wir geplant, gezielt etwa 14 Sprach-Communities zu kontaktieren (Communities, die noch kein ausführliches Regelwerk haben, aber eine relevante Anzahl von aktiven Freiwilligen) und mit ihnen durch per Kurzzeitvertrag angestellte muttersprachliche Facilitators eine vorab Befragung zum Thema durchzuführen. In der Folge wird es eine allgemeine Befragung für alle Wikis geben. Wir haben (auch finanziell abgesichert) im Plan, dass es dabei professionelle Übersetzungen geben wird, insbesondere natürlich für das endgültige Ergebnis. Aber all Einzelschritte in alle Sprachen zu übersetzen übersteigt unsere Möglichkeiten. Jede Hilfe vorhandene Inhalte als Freiwillige zu übersetzen ist deshalb hoch willkommen!
English version (rough translation): Please remember that what you find here is an announcement of a project in a pre planning stage. At the moment we are contacting communities around the world in their languages to make them aware of this. We are ready to take comments and questions in the languages people feel comfortable in communicating. As a next step we will do an outreach to around 14 language communities we have identified as target communities (communities who do not have an extensive set of rules, but have a certain number of active contributors) and do a pre-consultation with them through hired facilitators in their languages. After that there will be a general consultation for all the wikis. We have planned (and budgeted for) some professional translations on the way and certainly for the translation of the final result, but do not have the resources to do translations in all languages for all steps. Helping out by translating content you are able to translate as a volunteer is highly appreciated! --CSteigenberger (WMF) (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Klar; in der frühen Planungsphase: und in der späten wird dann der finale Entwurf präsentiert wo man ggf. noch die Kommasetzung beeinflussen kann ...
aber gut. Ich gehe von einer "hidden agenda" aus bzw. so hidden ist die gar nicht: WMF will seine Machtposition ggü. den Communitys auf eine Regel stellen. Damit dann Superprotect oder Bans wie gegen Fran frei Hand direkt von WMF aus gemacht werden können. Die Behauptung es wäre da es eine Regelungslücke gäbe wodurch es "zahlreiche Vorfälle" gab die Mobbing ermöglichten ist mit extrem viel AGF wohl Wunschdenken, wahrscheinlicher ist es schlicht eine Lüge: ich habe mehrfach, inklusive ping nachgefragt und einen Belege erbeten. Ich bekam keine Antwort also gehe ich davon aus, dass es schlicht nichts gibt. Wenn es aber keine Fakten bzgl. des Bedarfs gibt ist der Rest auch nur Brot und Spiele fürs Volk. ...Sicherlich Post 14:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC) schade, dass es kein "citation needed" auf de gibt. würde ich direkt im Kurier dransetzen
Mutmaßung: WMF bezieht sich vielleicht auf die Ergebnisse der Befragung zu Harassment (vor gefühlt zwei Jahren oder so)? Ich zum Beispiel habe damals in der Umfrage auch von Belästigungen, Beleidigungen und Bedrohungen berichtet. Allerdings auch, dass ich trotz Gewaltandrohungen auch von der Foundation nicht geschützt worden war. Die Foundation hatte es vorgezogen, auf mein Hilfegesuch GAR NICHT zu antworten. Seitdem habe ich den Eindruck, dass Office Actions, Superprotect und User-Bans einer politischen Agenda unterliegen, die mit unseren Projektzielen und allgemeinen Anstandsregeln nicht unbedingt irgendetwas gemeinsam haben. --Martina Nolte (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Bisher ist halt Schweigen im Walde, trotz mehrfacher, ausdrücklicher Nachfrage (mit eigener Zwischenüberschrift und ping; mehr geht on-wiki wohl kaum).
Da kann man nur mutmaßen und das führt, wie man im [Kurier sehen kann, nicht nur bei mir zu der Vermutung, dass WMF hier Superprotect und "Frambans" legitimieren will. Denn genau das könnte man dann ja mit einem, zwangsläufig recht allgemein gefassten Code leicht begründen und zwar sowohl um aktiv zu werden als auch um nicht aktiv zu werden. Das bei WMF-Aktionen irgendwelche persönlichen Befindlichkeiten eine Rolle spielen scheint ja im Framban nicht abwegig (um es mal diplomatisch zu formulieren).
Wenn ich das richtig verstanden habe (man möge mich korrigieren), sind ja auch personell Superprotect, Framban und dieser Code hier ganz eng miteinander verwoben --> Nachtigall, ick hör dir trapsen
Auch lehnt WMF es wohl ab dem unter #First a ToU for the WMF verlinkten zuzustimmen. Die Reaktion geht über ein It's good that you share your thoughts nicht hinaus und diese Formulierung ist wohl die US-Variante und "jaja". Womit Superprotect/Frambans weiter wundbar auf dem Tisch liegen.
... zu der Umfrage (die ich nicht kenne/an die ich mich nicht erinnere) ist dann die Frage; kann man aus den Ergebnissen den Schluss ziehen, dass Regeln fehlen, wie behauptet wird oder vielleicht, dass die Umsetzung mangelhaft ist oder gar, dass die Dinge subtil genug sind um von Regeln kaum wirklich erfasst werden zu können? ...
Bei Androhungen von Gewalt und ähnlichem, sprich juristisch relevantem sehe ich die WMF völlig unabhängig von einem Code in der Verantwortung. Das sie gar nicht reagieren spricht Bände ...
...Sicherlich Post 19:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Martina Nolte. Belästigungen und Beleidigungen habe ich durchaus schon erlebt, Bedrohung Gott sei Dank noch nicht. Ich komme nicht umhin festzustellen, dass es gewiss auch Streithammel gibt die das genau auch suchen. Ich habe meine Lehren daraus gezogen, denn Onlinestreitigkeiten können sich durchaus auf die eigene mentale und physische Gesundheit auswirken. Ein „Code of Conduct“ hört sich erst einmal nicht schlecht an und soweit ich weiß wird zumindest im angelsächsischem Raum, in der realen Welt, ein Verstoß durchaus geahndet. Aber da wären wir schon beim Thema, denn bevor man etwas Neues implementiert sollte man doch auch erst einmal nachsehen, ob das existierende Regelwerk nur Zierde ist und warum es stellenweise nicht durchgesetzt wird. Leider wird man oft mit problematischen Editoren, die auch schon ein gewisses Verhaltensmuster aufweisen, allein gelassen. Das Wort das Du verwendest mag altertümlich klingen aber trifft den Punkt – Anstand. Man darf, muss und sollte teilweise kontrovers diskutieren, doch verstehe ich nicht warum online ein Verhalten oftmals stillschweigend geduldet wird welches im realen Leben einfach vollkommen inakzeptabel ist. Insofern hat das nicht nur mit einer politischen Agenda zu tun sondern schlicht weg auch mit Seilschaften. Meine Erfahrung zumindest. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Zur Erbauung: Universal Tellerwäscher ;)
Zum Inhalt: Dier anglozentristische Laden hat sich noch nie tatsächlich für Diversität interessiert, wenn es ums Eingemachte ging. Obwohl es sogar bezahlte Community Liason Leute gab, die seltsame Sprachen sprachen, haben die nicht etwa als Liason mit den nicht-anglophonen Gemeinschaften so etwas wie das hier übersetzt, was ich für eine Kernaufgabe einer solchen Stelle halten würde, sondern das dann per Massennachricht auf englisch in die ganzen Projekte gespammt. Vor lauter Geld nicht grade gehen können, aber nicht mal die Höflichkeit besitzen, wenigstens die 20-30 häufigsten Sprachen asap zu nehmen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

" we need to ensure that everyone who would like to share important knowledge on our platforms feels comfortable and welcome to join us", also: "Wir müssen sicherstellen, dass jeder und jede, der oder die wichtiges Wissen auf unseren Plattformen teilen will, sich wohl fühlt und den Eindruck hat, bei uns willlkommen zu sein." How come that I don't feel comfortable and welcome at all on this page? Wie kommts dann, dass ich mich auf dieser Seite nicht wohl und willkommen fühle? Might the language issue play a part in it? Vielleicht spielt das Sprachproblem da eine Rolle? Or else the impression that the decision is already made and the call for actively engaging in the discussion only means that we should help to implement it? Oder vielleicht der Eindruck, dass die Entscheiduhg schon getroffen ist und die Einladung, sich "aktiv in der Diskussion zu engagieren", bloß bedeutet, dass wir helfen sollen, diese Entscheidung umzusetzen?Mautpreller (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Da hier das Fehlen einer Antwort bemängelt wird, sowie vermutet wird es könne an der Sprache liegen, möchte ich einfach noch einmal auf meine Hinweise etwas weiter oben verweisen, sollten sie in der Menge des Textes untergegangen sein. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Inzwischen ist es immerhin auf deutsch zu finden; dank einer IP. Andere Sprachen: nix. ....
Zitat: "Aktuell kontaktieren wir Communities rund um die Welt in ihren jeweiligen Sprachen, um sie überhaupt darauf aufmerksam zu machen." - toll und dann kommen sie hierher und; ah englisch. Kann ich nicht; nix für mich. ... Das macht natürlich den Prozess einfacher, weil man sich nur mit den üblichen meta-hanseln rumärgern muss und sich auch rumspricht, dass dieses Meta irgendwas englisches ist. ... und wenn dann später wieder ein ankündigung kommt; dann ists auch völlig irrelevant in welchen sprachen es vorliegt. Die Leute sind ausreichen abgeschreckt. .... und das hat IMO auch nichts mit "anfangsphase" o.ä. zu tun. auch bei "fertigen" Sachen werden finden isch übersetzungen nur vereinzeilt und unsystematisch. Gerade mal in meinen beiträgen geguckt: Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/1 - english only. beim Wikimedia Foundation Medium-term plan 2019 siehts besser aus. Aber spanisch: 27%, Französisch & Russisch 4%. Deutsch 100%: dank eines Wikipedianers. Der übergeordnete Wikimedia Foundation Medium-term plan 2019/Annual Plan 2019-2020 mal gar nicht, die anderen Unterpunkte auch so zufällig. ... Zwei Thesen: WMF glaubt nicht, dass jmd. der nicht englsich spricht irgendwas wertvolles beitragen kann oder WMF ist sowieso egal was hier irgendwer versteht oder nicht, denn WMF weiß ja was WMF will. Das reicht. Negativ? ja und bin hier nochmal vorbeigekommen weil cih diesen Beitrag las ...Sicherlich Post 18:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Falscher Name

Larger communities can use this universal code of conduct to review and polish their existing policies by seeing the bigger picture around the movement. New communities and communities that have only started to develop their own policies can look at the code of conduct for guidance and take it as a baseline until they have developed their own set of rules to build upon it.

So wie sich das anhört müsste das eigentlich nicht "Universeller Verhaltenskodex" sondern "Beispiel eines Verhaltenskodexes" heißen. "Universell" impliziert, dass er universell gelten würde. Habitator terrae (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, default or model (as in: A successful example to be copied, with or without modifications) seem much more appropriate terms, if the rationale is indeed filling a regulatory gap in smaller communities. A possible analogy could also be seen in a rather short and basic monastic rule, with possibly quite extensive local consuetudines. Some of the institutions, structures and ways of proceeding that have sprung up on the larger projects could perhaps be replicated here on meta for smaller projects by pooling of their resources. Although I am using religious analogies I do not see a place for an infallible organisation in this context. Those cases potentially requiring coordination with law enforcement and/or those which could end up in court should probably best be handled by a permanent and professional entity though. --HHill (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Simply no

The Wikimedia movement (does such a movement really exist? in my opinion: no) does not need a binding set of ethical guidelines. On the contrary, an attempt to enforce such a "binding set" will destroy the very essence of the community projects. It is extreme hubris to think that any organization could actually "ensure" (!!) that everyone of good will will feel "comfortable" (!!). I expect the kind of fake participation that is usual in WMF ideas (as in the Strategy Process): WE have decided to implement a universal code of conduct. YOU are permitted to take part in a constructive discussion about the details. However, my constructive argument is simply: forget it. In the best case, this is a useless endeavour. In the worst case, it is a Big Brother idea. Nothing useful can come out of this but much dangerous and hazardous.--Mautpreller (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

+1 We're all adults here and the self-government of my wikicommunity is working. The last thing my community needs is WMF making rules for us, because we can better make them ourselves. This UCoC-idea is totally superflous. Nasiruddin (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I am really baffled by one section of the "Community Insights" Report, i.e. the devastating answers to the questions "I am consulted sufficiently by the Wikimedia Foundation" and "I feel that my voice is heard in Wikimedia Foundation decisions". T&S seems to completely ignore this (as was the case in the whole Strategy Process). Their therapy seems to be "more of the same".Mautpreller (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

One more remark: This text is in all essential features written by me. However, it is not a code of conduct (although it was integrated in the T&S assessment of such codes). It aims to convince people of a way how to criticize articles in a review. It does not prescribe rules, ethical values or confessions and is definitely not binding. It is a free offer, not a set of rules. The very idea would be destroyed if one tried to transform it into a "code". If you really want to enable more and better participation as you say again and again, you should think about such offers. It is definitely counterproductive to look for ways how one can deny access to users, which seems to be the only idea of the Universal Code of Conduct project. This can only cause harm and should be quickly abandoned.Mautpreller (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Allowing diversity

Wikimedia truly is a global player. Our communities span around the globe. Diversity does not only exist within these communities but also between communities. Communication styles vary big times between countries and continents. At Commons, one of our global projects, it is helpful and expected that administrators consider a user's nationality when assessing and judging their communication. For example, German and Dutch folks (no offense, I am German with some Dutch roots myself), are known for a very blunt and candid communication style which can be perceived as rude or even as aggressive and offensive by - let's say - an American or Australian reader. Wikimedia Commons seems to have found strategies to work with the diversity of their users. Any global Wikimedia code of conduct, if really necessary at all, should allow wiggle room for such international and intercultural diversity. Please do not try to apply a cookie cutter globally. --Martina Nolte (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


A "Code of Conduct" - in addition to Terms of Services and Wikiquette guidelines - will only be as valuable as enforcement processes, and enforcing authorities come with it. Nothing has been said in the introduction about this aspect. Are we talking about office actions and global/partial user bans again, now based on violations of a global code of conduct? Recently, the consultation on user bans (after "Framgate") showed a very clear result: Communities highly appreciate self-management, including "local" conflict resolution and handling of disruptive community members. Wikimedia stated something like "we heard you, loud and clear". But based on the introductionary statements on codes of conduct, I am afraid that Wikimedia is simply trying to give a new name to an old (already dismissed) approach. Please don't. --Martina Nolte (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO: thats what the Code is about. To give WMF the excuse to use Superprotect or ban people as they wish. ...Sicherlich Post 14:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Martina Nolte: and @Sicherlich:. The UCoC project is not an effort to undermine community enforcement of policy, or to replace it with Foundation staff. It aims to support community practices by consolidating basic values around behaviour across the whole movement, especially beneficial to smaller language projects that have not written specific conduct policies yet. Local, volunteer enforcement is the model it is working with. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Die Botschaft hör' ich wohl, allein mir fehlt der Glaube. (I hear the message well but lack faiths constant trust) ... sorry, but it sounds to me like "Niemand hat die Absicht eine Mauer zu errichten" (Walter Ulbricht, some weeks bevor the berlin wall was build) ...Sicherlich Post 20:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@User:PEarley (WMF) for your understanding I repeat the reasoning I wrote before (somewhere): I remember two harsh steps against the community by WMF: Superprotect and Framban. It took a lot of effort and kind of "outcry" by the community to get it corrected. In both cases Jan Eissfeldt was involved. Now a Team which is (if I get it right) lead by him is starting a Code of Conduct but that has nothing to do with WMF seeking ways to get a legitimation for using its powers? ... Well, thats hard to believe to me. ...Sicherlich Post 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Trust is always a voluntary thing. You can't demand it, it is there or not there. I, for my part, don't trust Trust & Safety. Not least because they have not proved to be trustworthy in the past. You won't change this if you don't do anything to earn trust. This idea is not suitable to do this.Mautpreller (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@User:PEarley (WMF): Could you please explain in more detail how the implementation of a global Code of Conduct would look like in a local project? Let's say: German Wikipedia has their set of rules comparable to w:Wikipedia:Wikiquette and w:Wikipedia:No personal attacks and w:Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In the left bottom navigation you see that a LOT of Wikipedias have local guidelines and rules addressing user conduct. The rules are not exactly the same but the general ideas and goals seem to be alike. Local administrators apply those rules and guidelines in cases of misconduct including insulting, threatening, and otherwise disruptive behavior. Local administrators know their community's "local" communication style (I.e. they can well distinguish between candid, rude, and offensive communication); they also usually know the "historical" background of interpersonal conflicts; and they have a pretty good idea if a disruptive user is using offensive language possibly "by accident" in a single incident, or if they are willingly and repeatedly offending others. Accordingly administrators would implement administrative sanctions (i.e. topic bans, interaction bans with specific users, temporary edit bans, permanent/indefinite edit bans). Blocking policies would regulate appeals against sanctions. Additionally, users can call for mediation, and arbitration; or they can initiate a community vote on a users ban. What I am trying to say: This is typically a pretty complex system with which communities address and manage misconduct and interpersonal conflicts. Now, how would a global "Code of Conduct" play into this? What exactly would be the benefit of a global code of conduct in addition to these local rules and processes? According to your user page you are the Manager, Policy - Trust & Safety. As you know: Policy is binding; it comes with enforcement and sanctions in case of violations. Would the Code of Conduct be a part of the Terms of Use; and thus supersede local policies and processes? Would Foundation staff take Office Actions in cases where a local community is not capable (in the view of Trust&Safety) to handle disruptive users appropriately and effectively? If not why would there be a need for a global policy? You talked about small communities. I agree that there might be a support need. But wouldn't it be much more effective to talk to those communities directly and offer them assistance with developing conduct policies and/or with enforcing those rules? Last but not least question: Is the Foundation willing to include an initial sentence to the Code of Conduct that the policy only applies to those communities that do not have rules and guidelines on user conduct, and/or are lacking enforcement processes, and/or enforcing manpower? --Martina Nolte (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

An oxymoron: binding guidelines

What's the realtionship between existing local rules and UCoC?

  • a binding set of ethical guidelines
  • the need for a global set of conduct rules
  • These guidelines
  • The universal code of conduct will apply to all of us - staff and volunteers alike, all around the globe
  • it aims to provide a basic level of norms that everyone working on the projects will be asked to follow and build upon.
  • Larger communities can use this universal code of conduct to review and polish their existing policies by seeing the bigger picture around the movement. New communities and communities that have only started to develop their own policies can look at the code of conduct for guidance and take it as a baseline until they have developed their own set of rules to build upon it.
  • A similar question goes for the enforcement of the guidelines once they are drafted. The Wikimedia movement is run by the communities, therefore they remain the prime authority to roll out the guidelines. As per the current plan, the responsibility of enforcement will be handled by the communities and administrators of various wiki projects. However, thoughts and suggestions on alternative means of enforcement are welcome.

Summury: They're binding guidelines you can follow or not, but you're forced to do so because you have the authority not to do it. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 23:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a creative tension between the aim for a global code and the aim for an inclusive global organisation that is open to everyone regardless of their cultural background. At this stage, where we don't have any specific rules being proposed, it is possible to come up with the sort of self contradictory phrasing that English speaking marketing people are likely to understand as keeping options open, but which is anything from disconcerting to offputting and illogical to people who are trying to translate this into other languages, raising alarm bells for people who have seen previous US based attempts to impose US standards on other cultures, and probably discriminatory against our friends on the Autism spectrum. My hope is that the Foundation has people who can shift this dialogue to something like "We can hopefully all agree that vandalism is wrong, though sometimes you need to understand a language and culture to spot subtle vandalism. In some languages CONVERSING IN ALL CAPS is considered to be shouting and deprecated. But not all languages have upper and lower cases. For communities that have a single case script such as Georgian, SHOUTING is a truly alien concept. So we can probably agree that don't vandalise Wikipedia should be a universal rule, but don't write in all caps might go in the English language code and other languages where people consider it relevant."
My fear is that the Foundation will make the sort of mistakes US based "global" organisations are known for. Like many I have negative experiences both of the WMF and of other US based organisations. Over a decade ago in "real life" I had some US colleagues who were rolling out a US English rude word checker to all Emails going in and out of a global organisation. They thought I was being difficult when I pointed out that my German colleagues were having phone calls from clients whose German language emails were being rejected for including German words and names that were profanities in American English. I hope the WMF won't be quite so crass; But given past insensitivities and mistakes by the WMF, it would be safe to assume that this project will be high risk for the WMF as it plays to its weaknesses rather than its strengths. WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. It's also contradictory to state that the thing will subject both staffers and volunteers, when in practice it's an unilateral proclamation from the WMF staff towards everyone else. Inevitably, the power structure is unequal and contrary to all our principles.
To make sure that every stakeholder is equally considered, to counter the perception that it's something flowing from WMF staff to everyone else, to avoid conflicts of interest of the staff as well as anglo-centric and USA-centric contents, the WMF should step aside from this process. The stakeholders should be able to select a facilitator with proven experience in facilitating professional codes etc., necessarily from a non-USA and non-English country, and then all Wikimedia groups will have the same standing in discussing with the facilitator and contributing to a text. I'm sure there are such facilitators to be found in places like Geneva, Brussels, São Paulo and others where countless international social organisations operate; I know OECD has some comprehensive procedure to develop such intercultural documents.
Once a text is produced, WMF will not have a final say in its contents, but can endorse it, just as WMF can endorse the universal declaration of human rights or the Geneva conventions. Of course the international law of war is "binding" on everyone, but because it's external to Wikimedia nobody expects a subsidiary of the International Criminal Court to ever be set up in the WMF SF office to put a wikimedian on trial. Nemo 10:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for highlighting the inconsistent wording. It is apparent that whoever drafted this either has absolutely no idea what those words mean to local communities, and/or they're intentionally trying to differentiate their writing by using what they percieve as synonyms (rule/guideline, for example) and perhaps unknowingly, what local communities percieve as antonyms. Regardless, it's a huge oversight that shouldn't have made it out of whatever drafting process the WMF employee(s) who wrote this went through. If the WMF is so set on having a set of guidelines/rules/laws/divine ordinances to trump local project autonomy, at least have it defined and explained by someone who knows about the projects from the perspective of those whose autonomy they're writing away. Vermont (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Which communities have been involved in this discussion?

An invitation and a link to this pre-consultation page had been posted at the community newspaper page at German Wikipedia. Did WMF invite any other community to contribute to this discussion? Where do other communities provide their input and feedback? --Martina Nolte (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

We are still trying to get more translations and will definitely do a drive to invite more people to the conversation after we have hired facilitators for targeted languages early next year. We expect some of the conversations to happen at local projects or even off-wiki (some reactions are reaching us this way already). We will try to bring the results of those conversations back here to Meta, like we already did for the conversations that happened at conferences (another way we are inviting people) here. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The translation service Deepl exists and provides surprisingly good results -- much better than Google-translate. With this AI driven service reasonable translations are just a few mouse clicks away. Yes, they don't provide each and every language in the wikipedia universe. But German, English, French, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese and Russian would get the translation task a long way. I would have expected the WMF to use this service already. ---<(kmk)>- (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia_movement recommendations

@CSteigenberger (WMF): A month went by and it doesn't look like more communities have been involved in this discussion. But in the meantime, the preparations of a new movement strategy paper made it to the next stage and the recommendation still includes a global "Code of Conduct" - despite all the negative reactions you received here. Can you please explain this? What is the purpose of this consultation? In which way did the comments influence the process and decision making? --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


I won't take part in any discussion that involves OAuth. There is not the slightest reason why I should disclose my email to the WMF in order to talk about a subject. They can contact me via Wikimail, that's enough. A further reason for suspicion and distrust.--Mautpreller (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ein vollständiges Impressum für das Projekt wäre hilfreich incl. Fax-Nummer. Wo ist das? --07:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

First a ToU for the WMF

Here was a wonderful suggestion for a ToU, that the WMF should give itself in regard of their relationship to the communities. Unless they stop trying to rule from above and start listening to the communities and behave as the facilitator they are, not the leader, nbody will have any trust in them any longer. The WMF ist one of the problems in terms of conduct, they should Change quickly. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The WMF does not have ToU for staff that are different from those that apply to everyone else, but there is a Code of Conduct that applies especially to staff and board members. You can read it here. All staff members are bound by their contracts to adhere to this Code of Conduct. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
? So? It seems to me the Policy of WMF and the suggested ToU have nothing in common!? I doubt that the intention is that "WMF signs something". Its the content that matters, right? ...Sicherlich Post 18:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
That was a non-answer. We want a ToU for the organisation WMF, the service organisation of the Wikiverse, that gets all legitimacy from the authors of the different projects and has absolutely no legitimacy on its own. They have botched quite a lot in last years, they have acted mote then once in the last years against the communities, and they don't seem to have learned that much from their grave mistakes. They should eat a lot of humble pie and have a lot to apologise for to the communities. That ToU as binding guidelines would be a nice start. There is absolutely nothing in it, that cannot be subscribed by the WMF.
Das war jetzt nur eine völlig unzureichende Nichtantwort. Wir wollen ToU für die Organisation WMF, für die Serviceorganisatuion des Wikiversums, die ihre gesamte Legitimation von den AutorInnen der verschiedenen Projekte bekommt und keinerlei selbständige Legitimation besitzt. Die WMF hat in den letzten Jahren viel Porzellan zerschlagen, sie haben mehrfach gegen die Community gearbeitet, und sie scheinen nichts aus ihren groben und bösen Fehlern gelernt zu haben. Sie sollten ordentlich Kreide fressen und sich endlich glaubhaft bei den Communities entschuldigen. Diese ToU als bindende Richtlinie wäre ein netter Anfang. Es gibt absolut nicht da drin, was nicht von der WMF unterschrieben werden könnte. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Hallo User:Sänger. Anmerkung: ToU, also "Terms of Use", sind eine vertragliche Vereinbarung zwischen Personen ("Customer") und einem Dienstleister ("Service Provider"). Theoretisch könnte man die Community als Anbieter des Dienstes 'Schreiben einer Enzyklopädie' betrachten. Das knirscht aber an allen Ecken und Enden. Es fängt damit an, dass die (globale) Community rein praktisch nicht wie eine kohärente Entität handeln kann. Auch auf der anderen Seite gibt es begriffliche Reibungen. Die WMF ist eben keine Person sondern eine Organisation. Deswegen halte ich auch für den Vorschlag von Tinz die Bezeichnung "Code of Conduct", also "Verhaltenskodex" für passender. Viele Grüße, -<(kmk)>- (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Du hast im Prinzip recht, ich habe schlicht die Terminologie von Tinz übernommen. Wichtig ist vor allem, dass die endlich aufhören so zu tun, als seien sie der Boss sondern anfangen mit den tatsächlichen Bossen, den Communities zusammenzuarbeiten. Bisher haben sie schon des öfteren aus reiner Machgier riesige Konflikte vom Zaun gebrochen, und irgendwie kommt es einem angesichts von FRAMBAN nicht so vor, als würden sie ihr Verhalten jemals reflektieren. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Die WMF ist in der realen Welt verhaftet und somit nicht logischerweise Teil einer digitalen „Kumbaya-Wolke“ oder einer „Community“ die jedes Mitglied der „Community“ anders definiert. Eine ToU muss für alle gelten daraus ergibt sich dann ein ToC der auch für alle gilt. Die Frage eines ToC adressiert aber ein Problem welches gelöst werden muss, wenn nicht, ist der Käs gegessen und Wikipedia über kurz oder lang Geschichte und ein Eintrag in einer anderen Enzyklopädie.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What about this? The WMF showed their disregard for the community just yesterday with their rebranding proposals, that all completely ignored community consensus just to push their private point of view. As long as this mindset of ignorance towards the community is not satisfactorily dealt with, i.e. completely banned from any (WMF)er, there should be no UCoC by those uncivilized employees towards the community, that's like letting the fox look after the hen house. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 14:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ping. Just to not let all discussions vannish into the void of the archive. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 04:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems like WMF is getting increasingly out of touch with editors, i.e. people who actually create the Wikipedia. --Nomad (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this is really a great step to the right direction, particularly for editors like myself who comes from small language wikipedia's. I think the Universal code of conduct will enable us to edit on big wikipedia's like the English wikipedia without the fear of harrassment from other editors. Wikipedia belongs to all who edit it, old hands and newbies Bobbyshabangu (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that problem? The Wikipedia should belong to all who edit, that is the community, but it doesn't. It belongs to WMF, who is setting the rules (rather than the community).--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)