Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct

Archives of this page

---

2019
2020

How should Scunthorpe effects be addressed?

How does the drafting committee intend to review their proposal for Scunthorpe issues? James Salsman (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sending money to Snøhetta and calling it Mission Accomplished. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@James Salsman: Do you think the draft (or its translations) will have pattern matches for rude words? Or do I misunderstand the gist of question?

Aside: is UCoC pronounced like “you-cock” by Anglophones? Will I put myself in the crosshairs if I mention le coq? Pelagic (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Blatantly, you are trolling this page and harassing other contributors who actually want to have a discussion. Go away please. --Fæ (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Irreverent and flippant, sure. Harassing, hardly. Being told to "go away" on a CoC page, priceless. Pelagic (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You are trolling. Locker-room penis jokes show this is a macho men only space, and anyone that finds it unacceptably hostile to be derided with penis jokes is then attacked as creating the problem if they complain.

You are creating the problem here. Your behaviour is unacceptable. You are demonstrating the "untouchable jester" problem which has eroded our communities across projects, ensuring that anyone that does not fall in with the locker-room white man culture is subject to a drip, drip of abuse until they are driven off. --Fæ (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not a joke, I was thinking of text-to-speech. Did you not read what I wrote below? Pelagic (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I asked something in this direction as well here, the project Detox was something in this completely useless direction. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pelagic: I've heard it pronounced as spelled out ("you see oh see"). --Yair rand (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't tried running our UCoC pages through any text-to-speech programs, Yair rand, but as far as I know they do tend to spell out most acronyms regardless of whether they could be phonetically pronounced. I guess some like NATO would have specific pronunciation entries (so that you get "nay-tow" rather than "en-ay-tee-oh")? JS is somewhat of an expert in this area, so it did cross my mind whether that was the Scunthorpe issue he was referring to, or something else. Pelagic (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of not getting in trouble for editing articles about prohibited things. It doesn't have to be sexuality. Suppose some insane king published a book entitled, "Citing this book is Treason," and because of the king's insanity, passed actual laws to make citing the book punishable by the king's elite overseas death squads. Would citing the source be a legal threat? That's a contrived example, but we know that small wording choices in laws can have widespread social impacts. James Salsman (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely follow your example, James, but concerns about overly broad or ambiguous definitions in the draft have been raised by several people. I hope the review process will result in good wording, but it can never be perfect. My own worry is more about people and groups who will use "the letter of the law" to hound their perceived opponents off the projects, or to stifle discussion, rather than articles about prohibited things. Pelagic (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Scientific racism

File:Race clusters of Eastern Eurasia.jpg

Example of user created promotion of scientific racism. This diagram is derived from Figure 2 of "Craniometrics Reveal “Two Layers” of Prehistoric Human Dispersal in Eastern Eurasia", Template:DOI, 2019. "Mongoloid" and "Australoid" have been added, falsely making it appear that the research promotes scientific racism.

Talk:Black_Lives_Matter#Scientific_racism

Systemic promotion of scientific racism Template:Phab

Modern scientific racism is the promotion of genetic theories¹ that 'Negroids', 'Australoids', 'Aryans', 'Caucasiods' are distinct races of humans and that these can be confirmed using genetic markers. This is frequently muddied with race theories of language and conflation with terms used for cultures and national traditions. Despite the WMF CEO stating "I support the community revising its policies to eliminate racist, misogynist, transphobic, and other forms of discriminatory content" after I put some examples of current misuse of our projects to promote race theories back in June 2020, there has been no action to do anything about it. Consequences of waiting indefinitely is that Google, Alexa and other search engines use our multi-language Wikipedias as the "truth" when anyone asks what the "races of humans" are. When they get Coon's 1930s White Race theory as the reply, this is taken as fact, and in that moment the Wikimedia Foundation's funds and reputation for countering fake news, becomes an engine that promotes racist bias.

In addition to kind words of general support against non-educational racist content, will the UCoC and the WMF's commitment to implementing it, make any measurable difference and result in the deletion of fake user created fantasy maps promoting scientific racism, seeing the use of bad sources promoting scientific racism being removed from articles or the promotion of "Negroid race" and similar being visibly marked as historic concepts in all languages? Or will it be business as usual, where zero consequence sock farms are free to continue lobbying and introducing scientific racism² so our projects remain their forum for posting and justifying extremist race theories and alt-right race politics?

Footnotes

1. Including user created pseudo-scientific maps, of which there are currently many on Wikimedia Commons.
2. Example of some of the user created scientific racism hosted on Commons

Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been a month since I raised this question. The silence is profound.

The tacit answer, based on off-wiki discussions, is no. The UCoC will do nothing of itself, or as a result of its enforcement, to address the deliberate promotion of Scientific Racism across our projects.

I'm tired, looking at the disgusting misuse of our projects to promote bigoted race theories, and trying to take baby steps to correct examples and being knocked back and resisted most of the time, is incredibly depressing, compounded by the lack of any recognition that this is a systemic problem for Wikimedia. --Fæ (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Support

I support existence of this. I don't think it is a risk for communities. It would help where there are problems with lack of local guidelines or problems that communities can't deal with. On wikis, where are proper processes it may just be a confirmation. --Wargo (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

A small FAQ about UCoC

Hello, all. :) I’m the Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability. Trust & Safety report up to me. The Trust & Safety policy team have let me know that there are a few "meta" type questions about the UCoC and the Foundation’s approach to it. In the spirit of the conversation begun and documented here, I’m going to respond to some of these, anonymized and aggregated. I also note that I committed back then to doing more IRC office hours and haven’t gotten around to it yet. I need to get one of those on the books as soon as possible and will hope to have more information about that in a few weeks. I regret that my work doesn’t give me time to follow conversations on Meta, but if you have more questions you can email them to ca@wikimedia.org, with [CRS] in the subject line, and I will either aggregate and post them here or bring them to said office hour, when they’ll be posted as part of that transcript! You can also attend that office hour and ask me yourself. (I do still have the following conditions: (1) I can’t and won’t discuss specific Trust & Safety cases. Instead, I can discuss Trust & Safety protocols and practices and approaches as well as some of the mistakes we’ve made, some of the things I’m proud of, and some of the things we’re hoping to do. (2) I will not respond to comments or questions that are disrespectful to me, to my colleagues, or to anyone in our communities. I can talk civilly about our work even if you disagree with me or I disagree with you. I won’t compromise on this.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The FAQ

1. How can the team that conducts behavior investigations guide policy? Isn’t that a conflict of interest? Answer: While I could debate the philosophy behind this question (which to me is somewhat akin to saying that administrators shouldn’t be part of creating administrative policies), it’s really not necessary because the team leading this work isn’t the team that does behavior investigations. The Trust & Safety policy team is a separate unit, under separate management. (They all report up through the Global Lead to me.) Policy focuses on supporting policy and supporting the anti-harassment tools team. They do help provide on the ground trust & safety support at events sometimes, but only because the Operations team is too small to attend every event. They are not involved in investigations or follow ups, and they are not involved in Office Actions that impact users. 2. Has the Board decided that there WILL be a UCoC? If so, why? What is the business case? And why isn’t this more obvious in the UCoC discussion pages? Answer: Yes. Beginning in 2016, the broader Wikimedia movement began grappling with an update to its strategic direction. There was substantial research conducted into the challenges faced by communities and into potential solutions, involving volunteers, staff, and outside experts. As best as I recall, preliminary recommendations began appearing in 2018, very vaguely formed, and their final recommendations that include a UCoC are published here. Some of the material that informed their thinking can be found here. There’s a wealth of information within that Meta space. Based on the movement strategy recommendations it adopted last February, the Board has decided that there will be a UCoC. You can see their most recent statement on the matter here. I’ll ask the Policy team to review how they can make that link and directive more prominent so that community members from across the world reviewing these conversations understand where this is coming from and why. :) 3. Did the WMF and/or Board decide there would be (or almost certainly would be) a UCOC before the strategic recommendation consultations began? Answer: No. The movement strategy conversations began in 2016. I was chief of Community Engagement at that time, involved in both executive meetings and Board meetings. Before the recommendations began to coalesce to include a UCoC, I am aware of no conversations at all around such a document. It was not even mentioned in the 2016 board directive, by which our 2017 work was defined. We were focused at that point on supporting the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct and other anti-harassment practices that we detailed here, in January 2017. The rest of this answer is going to get long. :) Conversations about a UCoC and how we could support began when a review of the draft recommendations made it clear that this was going to be among them. The first such conversations I personally recall took place in early 2019 around the time the movement strategy working group published its scoping document that mentioned “universal basic rules for behavior”, but my memory is not perfect. :) At that point, we were looking towards future planning of the Foundation’s Thriving Movement Medium Term Plan, and we were still speaking in terms of “codes” (plural). Given our awareness of the draft recommendations, though, we committed to do preliminary work to understand what might be important factors to consider in such a document, and we committed to providing a draft for the Board to review and approve at the end of last fiscal year, so by July 1 2020. This was based on our expectations that the movement strategy was going to be reviewed by the Board and ratified earlier than it was, and also with the understanding that if the UCoC was not approved by the Board, the research we were doing would feed into community input for individual project consideration. (We were given early access to Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration 2/Community Health, since the Medium Term Plan adopted in 2019 was a five year plan, but we were also told very firmly by executive staff and the Board that we would need to modify that plan in accordance with the outcomes of Movement Strategy. That, in fact, remains our guidance, as a new phase of Movement Strategy is beginning.) The UCoC research launched on schedule, but the plan to work towards a draft was not launched until the Board directive, which was entirely based on the Movement Strategy. In fact, even the approach we are taking to UCoC is not what we thought it would be at this time last year. Until the Board had fully considered the recommendation, for instance, we had not even thought of the second phase. It was Trust & Safety’s expectation that it would solely be supporting the development of a basic code of expectations. 4. What if the communities don’t like the UCoC that is proposed? Answer: The Board will be reviewing the draft along with the response of communities to it, so they should be able to review the pain points with an understanding of whether or not the draft will work. As I said in my last office hour, I hope the Board will not ratify it if it’s not a good code. Also, the code has to be iterative to be of any real use. If it proves ineffective, it will need to be updated or replaced. Even the Terms of Use are subject to change. :) 5. Should the comment period have waited for the perfection of translations and for the completion of translations in more languages? Answer: We have never conducted a policy review where we have had the liberty of doing this. I myself facilitated the last major Terms of Use update, and while we paid for translation into many languages, we have never had the budget to translate into all 300+ languages in which projects are published. We have also never found a method of translation that did not invite dispute about the quality of translation - not with professional translators, and not with volunteer translators. Translation is an art - two reasonable people can disagree on the ideal translation for a given term. Refining and improving translations of the final draft will be a priority in the coming months. Importantly, like the Terms of Use, a Universal Code of Conduct is not written in stone, and future iterations are quite likely. 6. Was this universal code targeted at any specific project? Is there one project that needs it most? Answer: No. As I understand it, the recommendation of the Movement Strategy working group was based on a sense of inconsistency across multiple projects. With this inconsistency, some projects have well developed policies and others have none. Also, behavior that is acceptable on one project is not acceptable on others, which causes confusion to users moving between spaces. It also causes confusion to newcomers, who aren’t sure what behaviors are permitted and what aren’t, both in how they treat others and how others treat them. Any rhetoric claiming that the UCoC is meant to target any given community is at best misguided.

Subsidiarity principle

Hi! I've posted some things on the draft talk page there which contain some comments on the draft (therefore i posted there) but also some questions regarding the implementation of the UCoC, which is why i posted the link on this page. All the best, --Ghilt (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. :) I probably would have missed it, since I'm not taking part in the UCoC consultations, but I'll see what I can clarify. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

WMF (and Wikimedia-affiliated) individuals vs non-WMF individuals in future processes

I see that Phase II (Enforcement and Application) will arrive in a couple or few weeks. What will make WMF- and Wikimedia-affiliated individuals recognize that their opinions would be different from opinions of existing and newly non-WMF individuals (and those unaffiliated with Wikimedia)? How would the future processes, including the Enforcement Phase, recognize such differences? Furthermore, should the Board of Trustees' decision to implement and enforce UCoC override local projects' decisions (like enwiki's and dewiki's) to ignore the UCoC? George Ho (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Almost forgot. Should WMF individuals' and Wikimedia individuals' opinions matter more than non-WMF ones? George Ho (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nor will we distinguish based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement.

the critique remains. Of course we distinguish by accomplishments. That's what a meritocracy does. And Wikimedia is defined at least in part as meritocracy: Wikimedia power structure#Meritocracy. As all projects are open to anonymous and pseudonymous contributions and real life credentials do not count, quality of edits is the most important factor of standing. And standing is paramount in interactions. Otherwise elections for functions would not exist. I strongly object to this clause in whole and suggest to remove it. --h-stt !? 15:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I fully subscribe to that. Of course we are an meritocracy, and that's just fine. Why sould we change that? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The UCoC says (emphasis added by me): "In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without distinction based on age, [...] sex or career field. Nor will we distinguish based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement." I guess the intention is that we should treat everyone with respect, and that's commendable. But: Of course I'll distinguish based on standing. For example, when I revert an IP edit, I often don't add a comment (they probably won't read it anyway), but when I revert an established editor, I almost always add a comment. And of course I distinguish based on standing when I communicate with others, e.g. I'm less polite towards editors who have been impolite or annoying themselves. The current wording of the UCoC is quite sloppy and/or based on a severe lack of experience and understanding of volunteer work on WP. -- Chrisahn (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Quoting Wikimedia power structure#Meritocracy is slightly taking it out of context. Wikipedia also has elements of a bureaucracy, but you wouldn't just link the section whenever referencing a pro-buro view. There is a limited domain of validity to each section of that page. And I suspect the UCOC's usage of "standing/skills/accomplishments" is referring to this part, from your own link:

If meritocracy is understood as a community where merits can be accumulated in a power status that afterwards is rendered untouchable whatever the quality of further contributions (or deletions), then Wikimedia is not a meritocracy: the quality of every separate contribution is, in this respect, considered in its own right, and for example, "votes for deletion" take little or no account of the persons that contributed to the questioned content, neither does any wikipedian's vote have more or less weight according to "merit" in such case.

I think the point is: no editor's views are inherently more valid than another's. And if that's indeed what it means, that's an important clause to have. Many in the community are inviting, but there exists a minority who are not, particularly to newer editors, or editors who move from one area to another. Such ideology is exclusionary and elitist, and it prevailing would mean this 'movement' has no future. I also don't think this statement is in conflict with the realities such as having to show merit and interest, over a period of time, to take up certain permissions. That could be viewed as an element of meritocracy, but it isn't in conflict with the statement at all, it's mostly a technical difference. I agree the current wording isn't great, which should be tidied up, but I think the point it is trying to make is valid. "The correct ideology" prevails by argument, not by identity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I, too, think that there is a problem with asserting that accomplishments and contributions do not matter. As I see it, there are times when those things ought to be taken into account, such as when considering what kind of sanctions should be applied to a user who has done something wrong, but has also done a lot of good - as opposed to someone who shows up just to do something contrary to community norms. I think that ProcrastinatingReader, just above me, has hit upon a key point: I suggest changing "Nor will we distinguish based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement." to "Nor will we value standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement more highly than cooperative and reasoned argument." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Past contribution history may not, in principle, matter in achieving consensus in individual discussions, where the weight of an argument is supposed to be more important than who said it, or in contributions to articles, where the weight of reliable sources and the quality of the prose should be more important than who wrote it. HOWEVER, we do "distinguish by accomplishments" when we hand out access rights, from bureaucrat, arbitrator, administrator down to page-mover, patroller, article creator, or confirmed. We also distinguish by accomplishments when we hand out barnstars or otherwise recognize contributors for their contributions. And we distinguish by (negative) accomplishments when we block vandals for vandalism or sockpuppets for sockpuppetry, or otherwise sanction long-term patterns of misbehavior. A code of conduct that outlaws that kind of distinction is a code of conduct with a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'm really concerned about including "skills" in this statement of nondiscrimination. Skills include the ability to communicate clearly in writing, the ability to recognize what constitutes a reliable source, the ability to analyze, the ability to work collaboratively. This seems to be saying competence is not required. Valereee (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's just a poorly worded statement where (now) half a dozen different people have (quite reasonably) interpreted it in half a dozen different ways. I think most likely the message it's trying to send is the most sensible interpretation I try to expand on above, but it may well be the case they meant something else. Based on context, I think it's meant in a negative discriminatory way (eg, people aren't put down based on global standing, but instead on merit of argument; a 'correct' argument by a newcomer shouldn't be ignored solely because someone with standing disagrees). It's something where I think the underlying meaning is true, but the wording could do with some improvement. I certainly don't think it's trying to say that bad arguments or disruption are okay. Just that good arguments cannot be disregarded simply because the poster is an IP. It also seemingly denounces the idea of "unblockables". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Doxing

It seems to me that doxing clause basically forbids public paid editing investigations of any kind. It was like that on English Wikipedia for significant amount of time, but not all projects agree with such baseline. Also, per foundation:Privacy policy it is allowed for Wikimedia staff or "particular users with certain administrative rights" to "share your Personal Information if it is reasonably believed to be necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, this Privacy Policy, or any Wikimedia Foundation or user community-based policies". Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of Wikimedia terms of use, so Privacy policy allows forced disclosure in such cases while current UCoC draft does not. I think it's a serious flaw and should be amended in the UCoC. Another unclear point here is when an editor is a subject of an article and there is a reliable source confirming that this person is a specific Wikipedia editor, but editor himself hasn't consent to publishing this information in-wiki. Does the UCoC forbid to use this source in an article about this person? Adamant.pwn (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

JupyterCon/numFOCUS CoC case

I would like to note that there has been a CoC case at JupyterCon with the keynote speaker Jeremy Howard. The case was handled by NumFOCUS. It has created a stir in the community. I maybe worth that we follow the case and learn from it. Some background links are here:

• JupyterCon's CoC [1]
• "I violated a code of conduct" post by Jeremy Howard [2]
• NumFOCUS tweet [3] (I expect a response from them)
• Joel Grus' tweet [4]
• Valerie Aurora's slides [5]

I am no expert on CoC and haven't read much about it. I note that Jeremy Howard states 'CoC experts recommend avoiding requirements of politeness or other forms of “proper” behavior, but should focus on a specific list of unacceptable behaviors. The JupyterCon CoC, however, is nearly entirely a list of “proper” behaviors (such as “Be welcoming”, “Be considerate”, and “Be friendly”) that are vaguely defined'. I see no citation for "CoC experts recommend avoiding requirements of politeness", but it may be worth examining further. I note that Aurora write 'Do not require politeness or other forms of "proper" behavior (e.g., don't ban interrupting)' on the slides, but that the Ada Initiative points to the Django Code of Conduct [6] as a good examples and that Django's CoC has "Be welcoming" — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is Phase 2?

The Phase 2 was supposed to happen between September and December of this year. We're reaching the end of the year, so what is happening to Phase 2? George Ho (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well hopefully the UCoC gets cancelled, since the only response that anyone seems to be interested in giving to serious concerns that "communities might be downtrodden or oppressed" by this forced Universal Code of Conduct is "B-b-but if this Code isn't forced upon every Wikimedia project, the reverse might happen!" So... what does that mean exactly? Is it the Wikimedia Foundation's contention that oppressing and/or treading down on communities is acceptable, because it will supposedly prevent certain communities from potentially oppressing and/or treading down on certain individual Wikimedians?

What kind of justification is that? Sounds suspiciously close to an argument of "two wrongs make a right" to me.

Incidentally, people are discussing this Universal Code of Conduct as if all Wikimedia projects have agreed upon it. They have not. Not even close. And that is precisely why there is criticism. Perhaps some folks have the mistaken notion that if some poobah (or poobahs) declare(s) something obligatory, then the thing in question is suddenly "agreed upon" and "has consensus". That is incorrect. Unless the communities a͟c͟t͟u͟a͟l͟l͟y͟ a͟g͟r͟e͟e͟ on acceptance of the Universal Code of Conduct, then all that it is is an arbitrary bunch of commands forced upon projects by the Wikimedia Foundation under threat of site bans, project closure, etc.

If Wikipedia (because that is what most of this is about, let us be honest here) is so far gone that it does not even care much about consensus any longer unless consensus sides with the desires of a group of ivory tower overseers, then it might be best that a totally unrelated community project that actually respects people (of numerous different views and beliefs [some strongly conflicting and at odds!], not just those of a contemporary orthodoxy) pops up and replaces it. I do not know how that would happen nowadays, given that Wikipedia is so large and influential. But if this Universal Code of Conduct is forcibly implemented Wikimedia-project-wide, and/or if the approach taken with the Universal Code of Conduct here is to be taken as a sign of how things are going to progress and how decisions are going to be made from here on in, I sincerely hope that Wikipedia loses its standing in the minds of the public, and a more worthy project replaces it. Unlikely, but it would certainly be poetic justice if it occurred.

If there is one thing that I have learnt, though, it is that me saying any of this does not matter in the slightest to the Wikimedia Foundation. That is why I have ignored the Wikimedia surveys that ask me for my opinion, and I will continue to ignore them in the future. It would be a pointless waste of time for me to fill them out. The Wikimedia Foundation does not care about me nor anyone else who disagrees with them or (some of) their decisions. It really is that simple. That is why I gave up on any attempt at serious contribution to Wikipedia years ago, and instead retreated to the Wikimedia projects that I was already contributing to that were less... stiff and uptight; projects that I actually enjoy contributing to and can contribute to comfortably without feeling like I have to walk on eggshells all of the time.

Well, I have said my piece. I know that it does not matter to you, and that my plea that you reconsider this kind of approach shall fall on deaf ears, but at least this dissent is out there publicly. That way, on the off chance that the Wikimedia projects somehow fall into the hands of those who actually respect the approaches and policies of individual Wikimedia projects, it will be there on the record that there was most certainly opposition to attempts at totalitarian-esque 'solutions' to problems that end up proving more problematic than the original problems were. Tharthan (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

UCoC as an initiative of a Movement priority

For those who have commented on the UCoC, please feel free to input at "Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Discuss/Provide for Safety and Inclusion". George Ho (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Language Fluency and skills

While I agree that our multi lingual wikis such as Meta and Wikimedia Commons need to be open for people regardless of language fluency. It is an issue on other projects. I'm always careful when I edit on a Wiki where I don't speak the language, and I don't expect to be treated the same as on a wiki where i do speak the relevant language. I'm sure we have deleted people contributions and probably also blocked people on the English language Wikipedia because either their skills or the language fluency wasn't sufficient for them to be a net positive to the project. On at least one language version of Wikipedia we have a real problem with lack of sufficiently skilled native speakers to maintain quality. The Foundation in hindsight would also have a problem complying with this language fluency policy. Most year it hosts wikimania with one or two host languages and a clear policy that only proficient speakers of a host language will qualify for scholarship grants. I agree we need to think about linguistic equity, and probably host more meetings where the required language is not the usual English. But we also need to retain the ability to require certain minimum skill levels in issues such as language when we are running projects to write encyclopaedias and other crowd sourced works. This part of the code needs to differentiate between things like gender and ethnicity where we don't allow discrimination. Things like age where we sometimes have to put a legal minimum. And things like skill level and language fluency where we do need to discriminate.

We also need to think very carefully how we handle language fluency issues that are really linguistic disputes. Several Wikipedia versions have chosen to standardise on particular versions of a language - I think Portuguese at one stage had a situation where some Wikipedians based in Portugal were unhappy with having Brazilian Portuguese as the standard for the Portuguese Wikipedia. English doesn't have this problem as we standardise spelling at the article level not the project level. But I wonder if standardising a language version of Wikipedia on one particular dialect would be considered to be secrminitaing against people who speak other dialects of that language? WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

UCoC main page updated

I have updated the Universal Code of Conduct page in preparation for Phase 2 of the project. Dates are in flux, as Phase 2 must be planned in concert with other movement discussions. I will update the page as soon as additional details are available. BChoo (WMF) (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)