Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct

Archives of this page

---

2019
2020

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)

Another flaw in the total prohibition of "doxing" is where EditorA causes EditorB so much harm that EditorB sees fit to sue EditorA in a court of law where he can obtain financial compensation for the harm done. (Wikimedia can permanently block EditorA, but is almost powerless to prevent EditorA spawning sockpuppets and certainly cannot award EditorB damages. In order to go to court, it is necessary for EditorB to give the court EditorA's name and address which, according to Wikimedia's rules, is prohibited (See for example the fictitious example given in en:Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats). Martinvl (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

In my understanding the prohibition of "Disclosure of personal data" AKA "Doxing" primarily prohibits edits and creation of new pages with contents like "Ashley Example, 11 years old, phone 001 987 1234567, attends class 4e at Closed School in Nowherebourg TX, and is very gay." I have deleted or hidden a large amount of such edits at SV wiktionary, so this is a real problem. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Taylor 49: That may well be the case, but the letter of CoC goes a lot further. I am pointing out a possible unintended consequence of such a general prohibition without a caveat regarding the process of law, bearing in mind that the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to the Law of the United States and the Law of the State of California. Furthermore, there are many moves in both the UK and the EU to clamp down on the social media giants (and under their definition, Wikipedia is regarded as "social media") and depending on what they come up with, Jimbo, who lives in London, could potentially find himself in the firing line. Martinvl (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2021 (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's 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 years 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 discriminating against people who speak other dialects of that language? WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't want to do anything that smacks of secrminitaing. EEng (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ve learned enough lovely and interesting words from contributors that I've no shame in admitting I tried to look this up, EEng (seemed like a cromulent word to me =).

The Universal Code of Conduct is meant to remain subject to appropriate context. If a contributor lacking in fluency or competency persists in making unsuitable changes to a project, administrative intervention may be necessary to prevent those unsuitable changes in this context.

In Phase 2 participants may identify ways the UCoC seems to conflict with local policies in general, or in the specific context of a particular community.

Ideally, enforcement outside issues of a legal nature would generally be handled by local communities according to their existing community culture, policy, and practice. Where this is not possible, or where local policy and the draft universal policy diverge, please mention this in the consultations.

The drafting committee writing the enforcement section will take these concerns into account, and will be able to recommend improvements to the currently ratified document.

Thank you for the feedback WereSpielChequers! It will be useful for the drafting committee. Feel free to let me know if you have any other ideas. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno. Given the ongoing greying of the pedia, I think we can anticipate in future decades having a lot of admins who need to have the tools gently prized away from them, much as a very diplomatic pair of policemen persuaded my mother to stop driving after her last car was written off by a malicious lamppost. I'm not sure whether that counts as age discrimination or discrimination against those who suffer from the diseases of ageing. But we will need to do this, and we can't assume that every admin will just hand in the tools when they start getting dementia. Perhaps what is needed is a mechanism whereby the community can agree to some exceptions that apply to the UCOC. WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2021 (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)

Wary about assumption of good faith and mutual respect

EnWiki's AGF (assume good faith) guideline has never been "policy", and it will never be. Making "Assume good faith" an example of UCoC's "Mutual respect" would be a very long struggle to enforce and a very long road to go. In other words, the difference between UCoC's version of AGF and enwiki's AGF is either still unclear or not explicitly explained.

However, submitted draft version of UCoC has made definition of AGF too broad, IMO. Also, the relationship between "Mutual respect" and AGF is neither clear nor well explained. Either the relationships between "Mutual respect" and AGF and between AGF and UCoC must be clarified or explained, or the AGF must be eliminated from the UCoC. If AGF is eliminated, then the "Mutual respect" rule would be meaningless to this date and, for better enforcement, must be changed/altered and clearer. Otherwise, "Mutual respect" would be too weak to enforce. (Realizing AGF may matter but not as much as "mutual respect" itself) George Ho (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC); mostly struck, 02:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why the emphasis on "not a policy"? It's a behavioural guideline, like many other things which are obviously problematic. I suspect the idea is that it's a corollary to the policy. Nevertheless, "assume good faith" is also a section in en:Wikipedia:Civility (which is a policy).

Is there anything within the "Mutual respect" section which you actually think is a bad principle? Or are you just concerned it'll be poorly enforced in a lawyerly manner, like how civility enforcement is sometimes done on enwiki? If the latter, I think this is an issue for the 'enforcement' stage of UCOC. In my opinion, most of the things in "mutual respect" are sound principles for a constructive collaborative environment. Bullet #3 may be slightly iffy w.r.t. cultural honourifics (for example), but like much of this UCOC (imo) the principles are good, the specific wording is eh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of enwiki, I see too many enwiki people here. I know we probably have (one of) the most developed PAG rulebooks of any project, but I'm still a bit concerned the enwiki-centric views could lead to skewed opinions. Are the rest of the wider community participating somewhere else, or? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ist das nicht das normale Vorgehen hier? Die monolingualen Anglozentriker bestimmen alles, und der Rest hat gefälligst Englisch zu lernen, und am Besten auch noch das ganze Regelkonvolut der enWP zu verinnerlichen, als ob die der Nabel der Welt wären. Imho sollten alle, die nur Erfahrungen in der enWP haben, und nur eine Sprache sprechen, von solche Diskussionen wegen mangelnder Erfahrung ausgeschlossen werden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 01:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Why the emphasis on "not a policy"? I was basing on w:WP:PAG#Role. BTW, I either forgot or didn't know about Civility policy referencing AGF.

Is there anything within the "Mutual respect" section which you actually think is a bad principle? What about "Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves" as well? It contrasts w:Wikipedia:Username policy, especially "Disruptive or offensive usernames" and "Promotional names" sections. Furthermore, examples don't ease my concerns; rather I found respecting usernames less practical than it sounds.

Also, "Practice empathy" would conflict with or prevent accurate criticisms, especially reasonable, well-sounded, and well-constructed ones, toward cultures and different backgrounds, including ones that hold controversial values and implement values in weirder or controversial ways. Furthermore, as I fear, those from one culture may try empathy with those from another culture that would not do empathy. How one culture views other cultures wouldn't be prevented by practicing empathy, would it be? George Ho (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ein weiteres Zeichen der Verachtung für andere Sprachen ist die Benutzung von :w: um auf :en: zu zeigen, auch wenn ich als Sprache in meinem Konto DE ausgewählt habe. Die enWP ist nicht der Nabel des Wikiversums, nicht mal im Ansatz, sie ist nur ein Projekt unter vielen und verdient keinerlei Sonderstellung. Die Bentzung von :w: als Adresse für ein willkürliches Projekt ist ein Schlag in die Fresse aller anderen Sprachen, es zeugt von der völligen Gedankenlosigkeit und dem Egomanismus der monolingiualen Anglozentriker.

A further sign of the disdain for other languages is the use of :w: to link to :en:, even if I've declared DE as my language in my profile. The enWP is not the navel of the Wikiverse, not even remotely, it's just one project among a lot others that doesn't deserve any specieal treatment. The use of :w: for a random project is a slap in the face for every other language, it's a clear sign of the thoughtlesness and egomania of the monolingual anglocentics.

Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Since you're concerned about anglocentrism (as well as the other party), what about your thoughts on German colonial empire (of the past) and past and present prevalence of German language outside Europe? The Germans colonized parts of Africa and part(s) of present-day Papua New Guinea during colonial days. According to the article, the German language was given to those cultures, yet the language hasn't been practiced much outside German-prevalent (is that the right term?) areas to this date. Well, German language in Namibia lost its "official language" status, but it's still prevalent there... somewhat? (More at w:German language#Geographical distribution) George Ho (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Schon mal was von Whataboutismus gehört? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 22:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ich denke, es ging um einen vermeintlichen Mangel an Respekt für andere Sprachen als Englisch, der in der Software implizit vorhanden ist. Um das anzusprechen, könnten wir einen sogenannten "MediaWiki internationalization task" bei https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/1/?projects=MediaWiki-Internationalization einreichen (auf Englisch, natürlich). Vexations (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Now I'm becoming worried that (any kind of) criticism of practicality of existing languages would conflict with the proposed "Mutual respect". Are there other languages that are still practical, global, prevalent, and influential besides English? What about Spanish nowadays? George Ho (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

French, Arabic, Portuguese, Swahili and Russian come to mind. I'm not sure what you're trying to say though. Criticism is not lack of respect, but a systemic preference for English, built into the software/platform, is disrespectful to people who don't speak English. Vexations (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for being less clear. I just replied in a frenzy because you were communicating in German, which I don't understand without using a translator tool. Actually, I don't know how practical, global, and influential German language is nowadays within and outside Europe. AFAICS, communication in German language wouldn't most likely attract much attention from non-German people, would it? George Ho (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC); amended, 23:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Multilingualität ist das Schlüsselwort. Bevor so etwas wichtiges wie ein UCoC nicht in mindestens einem Dutzend Sprachen vorliegt, braucht die Diskussion darüber gar nicht erst zu starten. Englisch ist nur eine Sprache von vielen, und nicht die Lingua Franca, die sich die monolingualen Anglozentriker gerne wünschen würdfen. What do they know of England, who only England know.

Leider ist schon durch die Ansiedelung der WMF im völlig überteuerten und anglophonen Silicon-Valley-Umfeld eine unschöne Weichenstellung erfolgt, warum zieht die nicht um in eine günstigere und anderssprachige Gegend? Am besten gleich in ein multilinguales Land. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 22:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

No clue what German colonial history has to do with things. But if a UCOC is being made that affects so many projects, all of which will likely have stronger non-local UCOC enforcement mechanisms than enwiki will, I think it's only fair they should have as great an input in what they think about this. atm, at least here, it's mostly our voices filling up the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
If I want to say something negative about an existing language, how do I also not want to violate the proposed "mutual respect" rule? George Ho (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you would want to do that, but it seems to me that you can't be both denigrating and respectful at the same time. Vexations (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Anyone would hopefully agree that running any process in multiple languages is difficult even with the best intentions. The EU and UN handle it with an armada of translators. And even that only applies to formal events and documents, while most informal discussions happen in some work language, usually English. With that in mind, and AGF in sight, I don't believe it's fair to accuse the English-speaking community, and Foundation staff especially, of harbouring any hostility towards other languages. Where comments are made in languages other than English, or where they contain errors because the author isn't a native speaker, they seem to be given just as much weight as other comments, and I cannot remember any rude comments or really any comments mentioning the language barrier in such cases (It's slightly unfortunate that George's comment, above, can be misread as flirting with Godwin's law).

English has been a compulsory subject in German schools for decades, and the vast majority of people should be able to participate in a discussion such as this. Some people will be excluded, yes. But there is no reason to consider that exclusion different than others, such as a lack of technology. It might be interesting to see language statistics for people who do not speak English, as either first or second language. Maybe the goal of inclusion would be efficiently served by running such processes in some other language as well. I doubt that German would be a leading candidate, however.

Finally, I can't help but notice that while global Wikipedia leadership has managed to expand the franchise to hundreds of languages, right-to-left scripts, and untold numbers of other cultural quirks that stood in the way of becoming truly global, dewiki isn't even willing stop mislabeling actresses as actors (and so on–all such labels are gendered in German) even though they are regularly being called out for it, and the 90/10 gender disparity that is both cause for and effect of it, every time the reputable media they otherwise cites as sources mentions them. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

2,1 percent of Germans speak english perfectly, see also English Proficiency Index 2020 (deutsch); English Proficiency Index (english). Cheers --Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 12:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how many native English speakers speak English "perfectly".Vexations (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Section 3.1 -- Harassment

From Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review#3.1_–_Harassment

> (Note: The terms “race” and “ethnicity” are included here as prohibited ways

> to distinguish people. The Wikimedia movement does not endorse these terms

> as meaningful distinctions among people and believes that they should not be

> used outside of prohibiting them as the basis for personal attacks).

This is good wording indeed ... but a detail is missing. I would enhance the note to:

(Note: The terms “race” and “ethnicity” and “sex” are included here as prohibited ways

to distinguish people. The Wikimedia movement does not endorse these terms

as meaningful distinctions among people and believes that they should not be

used outside of prohibiting them as the basis for personal attacks).

Taylor 49 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

We could simply say that we don't care how someone identifies instead of contradicting ourselves. Vexations (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Vexations WE is very vague and it is more complicated than just stating we do not care... Zblace (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I could have said "all of us" instead. Instead of "do not care", "are indifferent to" or "find it without interest or concern". Or just "what you are is none of our business". Yes, it is a bit more complicated than that, because it isn't necessarily our consensus. Some of us insist that the projects ought to be "colourblind", others find that that not-racism perpetuates the status quo that inflicts injustices upon racialized minorities, and we should be actively anti-racist. I try to be that in my personal life, but I'm afraid not everyone is quite on board with that yet.

What I meant in my response though, was that in stead of saying that it is forbidden to call someone a "something", because "something" is a bad concept, even though we have to use it to describe what it is that we can't say, we say it's wrong to differentiate on any kind of identity. Vexations (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What's supposed to happen now?

BChoo (WMF) what is supposed to happen during Phase 2? Tetizeraz (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: Phase 2 will involve community conversations regarding how the UCoC will be enforced. We will have much more information in the next few weeks, which I will post on meta as soon as I am able to. BChoo (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

BChoo (WMF) Per Universal_Code_of_Conduct#Current_news wasn't the board supposed to review and approve it first? Is that review still ongoing? Vexations (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations: We hope to hear word on this soon. BChoo (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Tetizeraz & Vexations; the page is updated now with details about Phase 2. Thank you for your interest! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Structure

The balance between positive behaviours to strive for and negative behaviours that will not be tolerated is a good way to structure these things from what I've seen. The CoC that a user group I'm involved with followsa similar organisation v:WikiJournal_User_Group/Code_of_conduct/Draft. In case it's useful, there's also a section at the bottom of that page with some other useful inspirations. Some possible things to consider including:

• Have examples in collapsed sections for each item (currently included for 'Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves')
  • Indeed, different communities could contain different examples to illustrate the concepts in a locally relevant way.
• Have a final section of 'possible responses that may be taken' so that people understand that there are a spectrum of response measures

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Forbidding talking about Conflict of Interests is bad

Some of the vandalism on Wikidata is due to users wanting to advocate for a particular interest. In conflict between different ethnicities it frequently happens that users who are involved in the conflict because they belong to one of the ethnicities engage in non-neutral editing of pages that are relevant for the content. Being able to say that those users engage in conflict of interest edits is valuable for the goal of having a neutral Wikipedia and currently it seems the draft intends to forbid speaking about ethnicities. When Arbcom takes cases about Jerusalem where Arabian Wikipedia's are in a conflict with Jewish Wikipedians it's important to be able to have a discussion about whether certain members should recuse themselves because they belong in either of those ethic groups. Fordidding to distinguish based on ethnicity would forbid such discussions. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If enacted, your suggestion could mean that we ought to identify and exclude all "Americans" from participating in discussing topics related to all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. I much prefer a situation where it is not allowed to exclude editors on the basis of a group characteristic. Ethicity does not constitute a conflict of interest. Vexations (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations: My suggestion is not that all people who have any conflict of interest should automatically recuse themselves or be blocked from doing anything. My claim is that discussion about whether or not in an individual case is strong enough should be allowed.

My claim is that allowing discussions is good and decision about banning certain behavior should be able to happen in individual Wikimedia project. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me give an example: Saying "I propose that X should be blocked from editing Antisemitism because she has been edit warring to insert unsourced fringe views" is fine. Saying "I propose that X should be blocked from editing Antisemitism because she is a jew" is not. It is fine to discuss X's edits, whether they are indeed fringe etc. But it is absolutely not OK to block X because they are Jewish or even to suggest that her behavior has a causal relationship to her Jewishness. That would be endorsing the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to ethnicity. You don't want to advocate for that, I hope. Vexations (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Belonging to an ethnic group is not a conflict of interest. --Yair rand (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This could create the situation where User:Y1 and User:Y2, both of whom are rabid Palestinians, propose that User:X, be blocked from editing Antisemitism because she is a Jew. This is also called "mob justice".Martinvl (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the example would have worked better if you'd avoided "Palestinians". We ought not attribute a single viewpoint to an ethnonational group. Vexations (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Martinvl: A code of conduct doesn't create situations like that. It just prevents certain situations from arising. I don't think that the code of conduct is necessary to prevent such a situation. In the Wikimedia projects that I know, two users who tried that likely will find out that they don't get what they want. In many cases it means that more experienced users will take a look at the situation and thing about how the content dispute should be handeled. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

On a daily basis, I am called "Russian" on the English Wikipedia by disruptive users who are unhappy with my administrative actions and imply I should not have taken them because I apparently am biased. (This is also factually incorrect, I am not Russian). Whereas I do not find this amusing, I do not think UCoC should deal with these situations, the community if perfectly capable of taking care of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Unusual idea

Lets throw away safety and inclusion together with divercity and transgenderism from Wiki and concentrate on writing Enciclopedia, not left ideas--1Goldberg2 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No summary report yet?

The summary report on feedback is supposed to be released this month. Now we're closer to February, and I've not yet seen the report to this date. George Ho (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Interactions outside the projects

"It applies to all Wikimedia projects, technical spaces, in-person and virtual events, as well as the following instances:

• private, public and semi-public interactions
• discussions of disagreement and expression of solidarity across community members
• issues of technical development
• aspects of content contribution
• cases of representing affiliates/communities with external partners."

What exactly does "private, public and semi-public interactions" include? Because, worded like that, it seems like the idea would be to apply a Wikimedia code to non-Wikimedia spaces, and that would be a big problem. For example, if two editors insult each other in a pub, or on Twitter, for whatever reason and I get to know about it, should I then ban them from Wikipedia because of its anti-harassment policy? The only element of that bullet-point list that has any sense, in my opinion, is "cases of representing affiliates/communities with external partners". All the other ones are too vague and open to interpretation and abuse.--L2212 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Allow me to add an "expression of solidarity across community members". I don't understand it either. Vexations (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Updated Universal Code of Conduct draft ratified by Board of Trustees (February 2021)

Hello all,

Today the Board of Trustees announced that they have ratified an updated draft of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). The update makes changes to four sections, adding clarifying language and reinforcing concepts in the October 2020 draft. These changes can be seen in the change log.

With this announcement, the project moves into Phase 2. The main page has an updated timeline that includes the major engagements ongoing and over the next few months. There is also an updated Frequently Asked Questions page with information on next steps, the current status of the UCoC, and more.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, phase 2 will end in July, right? Sincerely. --NANöR (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your question, NANöR. The Board resolution states the second phase ("outlining clear enforcement pathways") "should be completed by the end of ... July 2021". This is reflected in the current timeline (added link above). Similar to Phase 1, the draft being submitted to the Board of Trustees is currently the final event in this phase. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Xeno. I'll try to follow the second phase. --NANöR (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hate speech clause

In Section 3.3, third bullet, I would suggest to replace "Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory" with "Any deliberate use of".

Reason: A term like "Hate speech" already carries deeply ingrained definitions which may differ from the one intended here. The rest of the bullet point ("language aimed at...") gives an excellent definition of the prohibited behavior, so it is best to shift the focus to that definition.

Eldar (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Eissink (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

Thank you both for your comments about s3.3 of current Policy text: I have included the suggested change for consideration. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Appreciation

This expresses all my thoughts and wishes (as a Wikimedia editor) regarding what should be in place as UCoC. I truly appreciate everyone’s efforts and commitments in drafting this recommendations to adopt. I suggest! A UCoC section be added in the sidebar of every Wikimedia projects in order to give direct access for everyone. Thank you for taking time out of your personal time to help the world be a better place for all of us. Em-mustapha ^{User | talk} 15:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Em-mustapha: Thank you for your comments! I will forward your idea to include a sidebar link at all Wikimedia projects providing access the policy. Feel free to let me know if you have any more ideas! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the main page

Yair rand: I appreciate your attention to the main page text and understand the motivation behind those copy edits. As the originally submitted text was sent for translation to support the Phase 2 community consultations efforts, would you be willing to restore the previous version of the English text copy to avoid confusion between projects?

The change in Special:Diff/21050573 adds a statement of expectation that is contingent on the results of upcoming consultations, and should be amended or restored to the original for clarity.

The change in Special:Diff/21051464 appears to link to a discussion about holding Wikimedia Foundation accountable to a new concept that has not yet been enacted. The phrase you added ("have rejected any WMF-imposed code of conduct") does not seem to accurately describe the outcome of that link.

This consultation involves all language communities, and a stable, translated description of the project is needed. Due to the way the translation work is structured, it would be best if revisions were proposed on talk before major changes are made.

I look forward to hearing more about your thoughts on the project. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Xeno (WMF) Wouldn't it be best to let this page stabilize, and then send it off for retranslation? If the page has been improved, then the translations should be improved to match it, not the page reverted.

I'll also say that I believe that the unanimous consensus at the link added by Special:Diff/21051464 does include 'It will not attempt to impose their notions of civility upon the communities with very diverse cultural backgrounds in the form of a central "code of conduct".', and it's hard to understand why that wouldn't be considered a rejection by the community that's at worthy of mention, at least until consensus changes. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 17:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ideally yes; however, the local language consultations are underway - so there is a need to have stable text and a uniform document across languages. Yair rand hasn’t had an opportunity to respond, so I’d like to resolve the two issues identified above while incorporating some of their changes.

There have been many community discussions held on Meta and at local projects about the Universal Code of Conduct, so including a link to one particular Meta strategy talk page section does not seem to be a representative way of showing the views present in the many communities in the movement.

Perhaps a better option would be to link to a page cataloging past discussions about the Universal Code of Conduct (including the one currently linked), so readers can make their own determination about community acceptance or rejection of the project’s objectives. TomDotGov: Please let me know what you think. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that the idea that pages can change is at the very heart of the **wiki** movement, it seems that a consultation procedure that assumes stable text is misguided. I'd suggest updating the procedures to match reality, rather than expecting people to stop editing pages. That's especially true now that the one of the recommendations of the strategy process is that we manage internal knowledge - adding relevant information to pages is something that needs to be encouraged.

I think it makes sense to link to as much on-wiki discussion as possible. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 00:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Xeno (WMF): The one linked is the only large multi-project discussion I'm aware of on whether to accept a WMF-pushed code of conduct, and it's a good representation of responses globally. Locally, there have also been, IIRC, discussions on the Russian and English Wikipedias with similar results, and another shorter discussion here on Meta. The WMF tried to push various consultations along the lines of "Once we do this, how should it be done?", and I don't think one could reasonably consider those to be discussions of the basic issue of whether to let the WMF do it at all. (There are also the wildly-misrepresentative WMF reports on "consultations", which I assume none of us want to get into.) In any case, the link target can be changed without causing translation difficulties, correct? So if is to be altered (perhaps to a new page outlining discussions and results), the link target is not time-sensitive from the perspective of translations.

Re Special:Diff/21050573, I don't understand what you're referring to. Could you be more specific? Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

To help explain, I've amended it in an edit meant to incorporate the spirit of your changes while allowing the English text to more closely reflect the version that was previously used for translation with the originally-submitted text.

SPoore (WMF) is coordinating the translation efforts and can explain further about that process and the need to collaborate on changes on the talk page before implementing them to ensure consistent translations and support the goal of a useful consultation.

Thanks again for your suggestions to improve the main page and providing sources of community comments about the UCoC, now being collected at Universal Code of Conduct/Discussions. Links like this will be useful in gathering a wide and diverse range of views to deliver useful feedback regarding the community's thoughts about the potential for a UCoC to be implemented. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's talk translation!!!

Hello all,

I’m the staff person who is coordinating the work to translate the UCoC and other related pages. Our goal is for people who do not read English to have access to the material soon after it is posted to Meta in English. Currently, we have around 10 languages with most of the content translated and next week plan on doing a larger call for volunteers to translate. You can track the progress on the Translation guidance page.

The Foundation’s team members working on the project welcome suggestions about all aspects of the content (concepts and word choice.) Hopefully this is obvious since we plan do consultations near non stop from now to July. :-)

In order for people who read languages besides English to participate in reviewing the concepts and wording, we need for there to be a stable version that everyone is commenting on at the same time. We plan to make improvements at regular intervals as needed and then provide change logs so translators can make updates. While not a lightweight “iterative process”, we designed the process to provide for feedback loops that should allow for improvements over time.

Phase 2 will have several points in time where it will be important to have a stable version. So going forward, I’m asking for suggestions to be made on the talk page and not made directly to the page.

Thank you to all staff and volunteers who are translating these pages. It is essential work that makes the Wikimedia movement more accessible and inclusive. Warm regards, SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• There's no need to shout. And as a main point - if all the legal, corporate talk in UCoC is supposed to determine who is getting banned and when - why are you relying on volunteers? Why translation of a legal text cannot be done with the powers of WMF? Remember that the basis in every language is supposed to have the same power as in English. Do you really want to rely on volunteers to commit to that? Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I translated much or most of the Dutch version but I would not want to be held accountable for any errors. The English text is very ambiguous. I provided a faithful translation, but there are many occasions where the translated version does not make sense or can be interpreted in several ways. There are two reasons for that: The original sometimes does not make sense. The original relies on concepts that do not exist in the target language's culture. My effort is deeply flawed and nobody should use the translation for anything other than as an aid to reading. Under no circumstances should it be enforceable. Vexations (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I think, that's something for most languages. The text is rather vague und ambiguous, such either not enforceable for anything legitimately, or for enforceable for anything illegitimately. Some is just corporate mumbo-jumbo without proper meaning, i.e. bullshit-bingo-stuff, some is plain matter of courses, all reeks of pining the jelly to the wall. If you codify such stuff, the Wikilawyers will run amuck and destroy all sensible cooperation. Nobody with any corporate or business consultant background must be inbvolved in such stuff, they can't get anything right and reasonable. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 14:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I’m replying to several of your posts together because they are related. I’m seeing two related but distinct issues that I want to address.

• Discrepancies in translation text: Despite the good work of agencies, staff, and volunteers, I’m sure that discrepancies exist in these different language versions. Prior to posting the agency translations, the text was reviewed by Wikimedians and in many instances improved to reflect the Wikimedia context. But errors happen.  And more frequently, people will disagree about the best word choice.
  • Communities are encouraged to help us identify and correct the discrepancies. Local translators often discuss wording on the talk page of translations. For questions about topics that might be relevant to the broader content, I encourage you to use the Translation guidance talk page to share questions and ideas about ways to improve the wording.
  • Discussions about enforcement of text will happen during Phase 2 and will include discussion about how volunteer administrators and functionaries will interpret the UCoC.
• Cultural differences between Wikimedia projects: The UCoC is not meant to replace existing, effective behavioral standards. Rather, the UCoC will work as a basic standard for all projects, particularly those projects that have few or no existing behavioral standards. Local policies or practices that seem to be in contravention of the UCoC can be examined and resolved taking into account relevant cultural context.
  • If you see cultural gaps in the draft, kindly bring that to our attention on the main talk page of the Universal Code of Conduct, and these issues may be included in subsequent reviews.

Does it make sense that we are handling these two aspects(Discrepancies vs. cultural difference.) differently? SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@SPoore (WMF), take a look at the policy talk page, please. Iniquity (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Iniquity. I'll take a look. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not how it supposed to work at all. There's a weight of responsibility (and WMF afer producing UCoC is avoiding it) on translation and usually it is borne by specified, trained and qualified professionals. Shifting it onto volunteers and communities to deal with the outcome of less than professional translation is more than disappointing. On the second element - Phase 2 involves discussions over a text that's not yet translated. There's no discussion over viability in terms of use of it only about hypothetical enforcement. Whoever trained those facilitators, didn't do a very good job (besides their ability to use corporate speak) Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

SPoore_(WMF) Does it make sense that we are handling these differently? I'm confused. What does "these" refer to? Vexations (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Two aspects that I addressed in my post. Discrepancies vs. cultural difference. I tweaked the wording to make more clear. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You really want to have forced use of special gender pronouns in the UCoC?

Moved from Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text#You really want to have forced use of special gender pronouns in the UCoC?. Iniquity (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a major deal and far away from a "minimal" set of rules. This is compelled speech and a very radical requirement. You know in Canada when they proposed this Bill C-16 how big of a controversy this was? Lots of reputable academics came forward to reject such a legislation, here are the arguments why this is not a good idea: [1] I think such a radical requirement should not be part of a "minimal" set of rules. Probably I am a bit too late to complain but I thought this UCoC would be a no brainer with only the bare minimum set of straightforward rules, but now as I finally read through it I realized, it's not. It is much more than that. It is a pathway to compelled speech. --TheRandomIP (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It is only listed as an example. However by doing so it is expressing a biased political point of view. So it is better to just leave it as: treat people with respect. Eg, Deliberately choosing to use a "she" when talking about someone that likes to be termed "he" is a way to show disrespect. But there is no need to include this at that level. An out is provided by "linguistically possible". However the language depends also on who is writing, as well as in what language. In English at least grammatical gender is not a problem, and we are mostly limited to pronouns. Though there may be a few gendered nouns, like "protegée". Some other requests of users in this category may well be trolling and not genuine, that is some people are deliberately trying to cause trouble, and in that case it is another way to show disrespect for others by setting up a minefield of things to be offended about. However with trolls, they can be ignored, quietly shut down, or politely dealt with. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"Deliberately choosing to use a "she" when talking about someone that likes to be termed "he" is a way to show disrespect." I agree. But the way it is formulated "People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns" makes quite clear that it is not about "he" or "she" but about so called "gender neutral pronouns" where there are dozens of such pronouns like "zie", "they" or whatever people come up with who feel they don't fit on the regular gender spectrum. But there is more: according to some ideologies, there is an infinite amount of genders and thus people may feel the need to develop their special pronouns to fit their personal gender, then they may force others to use this pronoun. This would be consistent with the UCoC. Thus, the UCoC already carries a certain ideology with it. This should not be the case. --TheRandomIP (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

TheRandomIP Almost four years after Bill C-16 became law, the sky has not fallen in Canada. Jordan Peterson has not been imprisoned. He has said he would use a transgender person's preferred pronouns if he was asked to do so. His objection appears to be that requiring the use some epicine pronouns (such as 'xe') results in compelled speech. Let's see how that works out here: We have no way to determine another editors gender other than what by they tell us, which is often very little. You don't know what I look look like, so you can't make a guess based on my appearance. I don't write about myself in a gendered language so you can't tell from hpw I write either. Both you and I have give no indication of our gender on our user pages. However, the Wikimedia software allows people to set a preference for gender. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal provides three options: they, she and he. We both have it set to 'they'. The Gender template doesn't work on meta, but you can use the GENDER magic word. For example {{GENDER:Vexations|he|she|they}} will yield 'they'. If I check the preferred pronouns of all 118 participants to this page on meta, I see that 91 have their preference set to 'they', 23 use 'he' and 4 use 'she'. Almost nobody has a username that is clearly gendered, nor does anyone appear to have any other marked that unambiguously indicates their gender. Very few people have a photo that unambiguously shows their gender. The only obvious way that someone could possibly be in violation of the CoC in his/her/their communication with you would be a scenario in which he/she/they used 'he' or 'she', against your wishes; you would correct him/her/them; you would ask to use the pronoun that you have set in your preferences (using the template or magic word Gender or Geschlecht for example); he/she/they would refuse to comply with that request and persist in misgendering you. If he/she/they were to do such a thing, that would be harassment. If I know that Jordan identifies as male but I keep referring to him as Mrs. Peterson for example. That's not what Peterson's objection is about though: Peterson seems to have this hypothetical scenario where some trans-activist SJW wants you to use a pronoun such as 'xe' that he thinks is an expression of a belief (such as 'there are infinite genders') that he doesn't share, and he doesn't want to be compelled to express such a belief by using 'xe'. But that isn't an issue here: as long as you use the preference set by the editor in his/her/their preferences, nobody can reasonably accuse you of harassment. Vexations (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This is, I would say, a bit weak argumentation. First of all, people could object that the wiki system was too limited for them and that they had some different kind of gender apart from male, female or neutral, and still come up with a special unique pronoun they want to force me to use. Who will decide then what's right or wrong? Some Wikimedia bureaucrats living on other side of the pond? This:

some trans-activist SJW wants you to use a pronoun such as 'xe' that he thinks is an expression of a belief (such as 'there are infinite genders') that he doesn't share, and he doesn't want to be compelled to express such a belief by using 'xe'.

is exactly my objection to this UCoC. Such a behavior would be consistent with the CoC, as there is no limitation to what gender pronouns people can force on me.

So what if I don't believe there is an infinite amount of genders? (something that has been debated by e.g. en:Debra W. Soh) There would be no way to express my disagreement as this may fall under the UCoC. This is a lock-in to some specific ideology.

Although I appreciate the goal of being more inclusive, in the end, however, it will be exclusive to those having a different opinion. --TheRandomIP (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

TheRandomIP Thanks, I think this clarifies things a bit at least. You appear to be concerned that a hypothetical radical transgender activist could come along to force you to express a belief about gender that you don't hold. This implies that you can be compelled to use a pronoun. You can't. If you refer someone as 'he' or 'she' or 'they', and that person asks you to use 'xe' instead, you can simply stop using the pronoun altogether. A pronoun is a substitute for a noun. Use the noun. It is easy to say "Vexations said" in stead of "he said". There is no compelled speech, merely incorrect descriptors that you are asked to avoid. BTW, if you check how many people actually have a userbox that says they prefer that you use 'xe' you'll find that this particular concern is indeed mostly hypothetical. Vexations (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Most people who make the argument that someone could request non-standard genders seems to go down a fallacious line of reasoning. Typically people only ask for he, she or they. I've never come across anyone asking for a different pronoun, though I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's uncommon. So this is really not that big of an "inconvenience". And the point, I presume, is mostly to stop people intentionally using other genders, or using "it", in a way to show contempt for a person's gender identity. I don't think anyone is going to, or should, get sanctioned for slipping up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Terminology problem: corporate culture of top-down control

I've spent some time looking through the UCoC issue politically, in terms of the Wikimedia community. The current content of the page here includes near the top: "... though the community has not approved the Universal Code of Conduct. Phase 2 involves community conversations and proposal drafting on how to implement and enforce the UCoC."

The second part literally contradicts the first part. If the community has not approved UCoC, then it is politically unacceptable to say that what remains to be discussed are options for how to implement and enforce UCoC, rather than whether to implement and enforce it. We're aware that WMF members are in close contact with the corporate world, and as the WMF wikis together form one of the world's top few websites, we're aware that corporate and political pressure on WMF must be huge. I can empathise (without agreeing) with individuals finding it hard to not fall into top-down culture.

I see this as primarily a problem of WMF insensitivity to the community and difficulty in rejecting corporate culture. For the particular example I've cited here, a sufficient improvement, it seems to me, would be:

"... though the community has not approved the Universal Code of Conduct. Phase 2 involves community conversations and proposal drafting on how, if accepted by the community, UCoC would be implemented and enforced."

The actual intent and need for UCoC seems valid to me. I've noticed the practical involvement of Wikimedia communities other than the dominant en.Wikipedia community in consultations, and I assume that this is a deliberate aim to bypass our known demographic biases. This is very positive, and I'm sure that it wasn't that easy to organise. On the other hand, I don't think that the en.Wikipedia community should be de facto excluded from participating in making the decision by not making the proposal widely known.

Major grassroots international organisations doing a huge amount of good for the world like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have had their own issues of top-down decision-making, including a few well-known blunders, and they also have some in-built structural problems, but there's no particular reason to suspect that the individuals making decisions were not highly committed, long-term experienced human rights activists doing their best to make good decisions for their organisations; so it would be surprising if WMF completely escaped making a few major blunders. This particular case is not as bad as the ridiculous "branding" proposal, since in this case (UCoC), my prediction is that if the Wikimedia community is given the chance to participate in a legitimate decision-making process, then there'll be an overwhelming decision in favour of the proposal. If we're not given the chance to participate (not just "be consulted"), then a lot of energy will be wasted on a symbolic battle for power between WMF and the community.

I've also noticed that at least some code of conduct texts give the impression of a willingness to violate habeas corpus and the assumption of innocence, reversing well accepted human rights standards; I hypothesise (I may well be wrong) that some of that culture might have seeped into the idea of UCoC, which "must be enforced" even before it has been accepted as a decision.

I suggest that WMF people do a bit of editing and fix up all the Lukashenko type terminology and replace it by phrasing that shows more respect for the community, making it clear that it's the community's prerogative to have the final say in constitutional-type decision-making. Boud (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It does appear that some is affected by American politics, but not all American "rights" are granted. But at least it can be discussed. Probably nothing will happen as a result of discussion, unless one of those "blunders" is identified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Please replace the GAFAM survey by a survey on an ethically acceptable server

Moved from Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text#Please replace the GAFAM survey by a survey on an ethically acceptable server. Iniquity (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

On one of the WMF wikis, I have just noticed an invitation to take part in an UCoC survey on a GAFAM website that will violate my privacy and that will support non-free software. Both of these are fundamentally opposed to the aims of the free knowledge movement. Google and the other components of GAFAM are centralised, secretive organisations that maximise their value on their market. WMF wikis are the (almost) complete opposite.

To whichever UCoC-related person had the crazy idea of setting up a survey on a Google server: Please look through https://switching.software to find an ethically acceptable survey software package and host for carrying out the survey. Resistance is fertile, not futile! Keep in mind that people living in the European Union have the GDPR to defend our rights and do not wish to "be the product" of Google. Thanks. Just to be clear: I'm criticising the action as hypocritical, not the person. Boud (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a normal behaviour for those (WMF)ers, they don't care about our core values but go for minimum effort, not better privacy. I've told them more then just once, that Facebook, Google or anything along that lines can't produce a valid outcome, as it excludes those, eho care a bit about privacy. Using Google, Facebook, Twitter and other junk like that mus be completely off the table, at least as an input option for the community. What people do in private is their business, but the WMF , and the whole Wikiverse, has to have higher standards. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

If we're ever going to formalize the rights of Wikimedians, this ought to be one of them: No policy of any Wikimedia project shall be construed or applied so as to require a Wikimedian to reveal any personal information or require, coerce or otherwise force a Wikimedian to use non-free, non-gratis software or services. I just noticed that on Commons there is now a proposal to ban the practice Vexations (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

In short I expect something like "We used Google Form but don't do this at home: this is not a feature, this is a bug. Can you help us to adopt something Free?" and the answer is: Thank you for your work and yes, we can help you! You can start from the WMF's extraordinary technical department and the Wikimedia awesome tech volunteers, get them involved to adopt a solution respecting users' freedoms. For example I suggest LimeSurvey and QuickSurvey. Yes, they are widely adopted. Yes, they have no limitations if you host them or if you have a serious partner. Feel free to ask me (and other people) how. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)