Policy talk:Event ban policy: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Bluerasberry in topic Happy to see this WMF + community collaboration
Content deleted Content added
break
Line 2: Line 2:
Could someone explain what authority the Wikiconference 2015 DC organizers had to ban someone from entering the "open" and "public" events taking place on federal property (the National Archives) in October 2015? That event was [https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2016/nr16-03.html advertised] as "open to '''anyone''', regardless of their involvement with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia projects. We welcome the curious, '''the skeptical''', and anyone wishing to engage in meaningful conversation about the Wikimedia movement in the United States, free culture and digital rights advocacy and outreach, community building, and technology." Wikimedia DC has not responded to an information request about this matter, but the National Archives has nearly completed a Freedom of Information Act request about it. - [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 13:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Could someone explain what authority the Wikiconference 2015 DC organizers had to ban someone from entering the "open" and "public" events taking place on federal property (the National Archives) in October 2015? That event was [https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2016/nr16-03.html advertised] as "open to '''anyone''', regardless of their involvement with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia projects. We welcome the curious, '''the skeptical''', and anyone wishing to engage in meaningful conversation about the Wikimedia movement in the United States, free culture and digital rights advocacy and outreach, community building, and technology." Wikimedia DC has not responded to an information request about this matter, but the National Archives has nearly completed a Freedom of Information Act request about it. - [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 13:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
<br>(Pinging page creators [[User:Kalliope (WMF)]] and [[User:Jalexander-WMF]] who may be able to address the question.) - [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 20:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
<br>(Pinging page creators [[User:Kalliope (WMF)]] and [[User:Jalexander-WMF]] who may be able to address the question.) - [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 20:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

== Happy to see this WMF + community collaboration ==

For years Wikimedia community volunteer organizers have been burned with too many decisions about event bans. I am glad to see Wikimedia Foundation staff present this policy back in partnership with the Wikimedia community and in response to many requests for support. I think everyone was unsure in the past about what should be done, and I also expect that the conversation will develop, but I am glad that we have this as a continuing step in the process.

I wish that when volunteers organize events, they could be supported with clear guidance on event bans. Regardless of whether the ban comes from WMF recommendation, other Wikimedia community members, or a request from an external stakeholder, I appreciate that this policy suggests that the WMF will offer central support to event organizers for communicating and managing bans. I continue to believe that volunteering to organize an event should be separate from the process of managing, communicating, mediating, and judging bans. Volunteers who want to do event organization are not equipped to deal with such things without external support. There is a tendency in the Wikimedia community to imagine that everything can be managed with volunteers; this is not the case, and when safety and people's reputations are at stake I especially appreciate trained, experienced event support.

One contributing factor to developing this policy was, I think, [[Grants:IdeaLab/Centralised_harassment_reporting_and_referral_service#Endorsements|a community request to fund an external organization]] to develop a policy like this. {{u|Hexatekin}} was the most prominent voice that I saw in calling for increased protection for Wikimedia community members in responding to issues that required a ban. At her direction, I typed a lot of suggestions on meta. Whatever I typed that did not come from her were ideas from other people, and the clever and reasonable suggestions seemed endless to me whenever I asked in any direction. Every community member who contributed anything to the effort to develop this deserves equal credit and should feel ownership in this policy to the extent that they wish to feel that it came from their efforts. I think it would be accurate to say that this policy is a consequence of not fewer than many hundreds of suggestions and requests. To represent some of the names of people who should have credit for this, I will list the names of people who signed on that "harassment reporting" project page. The people who signed there only came to that page after researching the issue and trying to find appropriate actions to take. If anyone else wishes to give credit to any group, organization, WikiProject, mailing list, or set of individuals now or at any time in the future, then I would join them in confirming all the credit that is due to the many volunteers who continue to give their time in this space.
Thanks to
*{{ping|Becksguy|econterms|Raystorm|Pundit|Lightbreather|Wordreader|Xttina.Garnet}}
*{{ping|Mssemantics|Aratrica|Goldfishbutt|Ocaasi|Catherine|Failedprojects}}
*{{ping|Siankevans|Sadads|Thepwnco|SuperHamster|Pharos|Theredproject|Mervat Salman}}
*{{ping|Netha Hussain|Mozucat|Neelix|Kayz911|Neotarf|Djembayz|Slowking4|Kevin Rutherford}}
and thanks to everyone else who has contributed and continues to contribute to the advancement of constructive and fair community guidance in making difficult decisions. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 00:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:37, 24 March 2016

Wikiconference 2015 DC

Could someone explain what authority the Wikiconference 2015 DC organizers had to ban someone from entering the "open" and "public" events taking place on federal property (the National Archives) in October 2015? That event was advertised as "open to anyone, regardless of their involvement with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia projects. We welcome the curious, the skeptical, and anyone wishing to engage in meaningful conversation about the Wikimedia movement in the United States, free culture and digital rights advocacy and outreach, community building, and technology." Wikimedia DC has not responded to an information request about this matter, but the National Archives has nearly completed a Freedom of Information Act request about it. - Thekohser (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
(Pinging page creators User:Kalliope (WMF) and User:Jalexander-WMF who may be able to address the question.) - Thekohser (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Happy to see this WMF + community collaboration

For years Wikimedia community volunteer organizers have been burned with too many decisions about event bans. I am glad to see Wikimedia Foundation staff present this policy back in partnership with the Wikimedia community and in response to many requests for support. I think everyone was unsure in the past about what should be done, and I also expect that the conversation will develop, but I am glad that we have this as a continuing step in the process.

I wish that when volunteers organize events, they could be supported with clear guidance on event bans. Regardless of whether the ban comes from WMF recommendation, other Wikimedia community members, or a request from an external stakeholder, I appreciate that this policy suggests that the WMF will offer central support to event organizers for communicating and managing bans. I continue to believe that volunteering to organize an event should be separate from the process of managing, communicating, mediating, and judging bans. Volunteers who want to do event organization are not equipped to deal with such things without external support. There is a tendency in the Wikimedia community to imagine that everything can be managed with volunteers; this is not the case, and when safety and people's reputations are at stake I especially appreciate trained, experienced event support.

One contributing factor to developing this policy was, I think, a community request to fund an external organization to develop a policy like this. Hexatekin was the most prominent voice that I saw in calling for increased protection for Wikimedia community members in responding to issues that required a ban. At her direction, I typed a lot of suggestions on meta. Whatever I typed that did not come from her were ideas from other people, and the clever and reasonable suggestions seemed endless to me whenever I asked in any direction. Every community member who contributed anything to the effort to develop this deserves equal credit and should feel ownership in this policy to the extent that they wish to feel that it came from their efforts. I think it would be accurate to say that this policy is a consequence of not fewer than many hundreds of suggestions and requests. To represent some of the names of people who should have credit for this, I will list the names of people who signed on that "harassment reporting" project page. The people who signed there only came to that page after researching the issue and trying to find appropriate actions to take. If anyone else wishes to give credit to any group, organization, WikiProject, mailing list, or set of individuals now or at any time in the future, then I would join them in confirming all the credit that is due to the many volunteers who continue to give their time in this space. Thanks to

and thanks to everyone else who has contributed and continues to contribute to the advancement of constructive and fair community guidance in making difficult decisions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply