Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Archive 5

When will changes be made to the UCoC?

The text is still Anglo-centric and contains untranslatable fragments, which is unacceptable for the international community. When will it change? Iniquity (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

And which parts are those? Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 18:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can be searched on this page: doxing, good citizenship. Iniquity (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

How are those Anglocentric and untranslatable? Those concepts don't exist outside of English? EEng (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is. These are very narrow terms that do not exist outside of this language. Iniquity (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I see 28 wikis with an article on doxing according to Wikidata. So it has at least some non-anglo adoption. For what it's worth Iniquity, the UCoC EG Revisions committee received two rounds of suggestions from a translation team inside the WMF and worked hard to incorporate those changes. Bigger picture, in places where the UCoC EG Revisions Committee had a hard time using language that wasn't English/Anglo centric, we created a guide for translators about the intent of the word so that it could be accurately translated. Please note I am speaking only for myself and not for any other member of the EG revisions committee or the committee as a whole. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

28 languages out of over 300? :) Moreover, as you can see, this is "newspeak" for many of the list. But I'm more worried about the strange "good citizenship". Why do you just refuse to remove them? They do not carry any semantic load at all, why not use Simple English? We have been asking for this for more than two years and no answer. Iniquity (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

> we created a guide for translators about the intent of the word so that it could be accurately translated.

Where it is possible to see? Iniquity (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, can you help? Iniquity (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if the translator notes will be made available to community translators or only to the Foundation employed translators. That's something foundation staff would have to decide hence why I did not answer when you asked before. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, and you don't know who to ping, who to ask about it? Iniquity (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct, I do not. There are specific people whose job it is to engage with the community. I do not know who is supposed to do so here at meta for the UCoC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns" is one item in a section of four items. The other three items are complete, grammatical sentences; this one is not. Please revise it to be a complete sentence so that translations do not retain the error. I posted about this error in 2021 and 2022, but it has still not been fixed. A simple fix could be "People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity may use distinct names or pronouns". Jonesey95 (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 there will be a revision of the actual code of conduct approximately a year after final passage of the EG, which is when feedback like that can be considered. The current revision process was focused strictly on the enforcement guidelines (and basically to the areas that were identified as lacking in previous community feedback). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Differences .. Localization

The "https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct" has a right-hand sidebox with "Wikimedia Policies" heading and "Wikimedia Projects,incl. subtitles"."Foundation Board and Staff,incl. subtitles"."Other,incl. subtitles". Please explain why the box is absent. N.B.... A mirror gives a reverse image. 110.174.50.79 23:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct#3.1 – Harassment

Insults: ...In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not.
Oh, this one is going to be an interesting application when dealing with editors who hide behind "misunderstood personal humor" to get away with put-downs of other editors they follow like moths to a flame. It will be interesting to see how many Admins will actually reprimand editors they have personal relationships with on and off wiki. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

open bar for misgendering

Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves. People may use specific terms to describe themselves. As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, where linguistically or technically feasible

I already pointed it out, but nobody bring me valid answer.

The fact is that in linguistic, there's the hypotetical words which doesn't exist in use but are a possibility (ex "leaf"+ "-less" = "leafless", it doesn't exist in use but it's linguistically correct and respect the way adjectives including the idea of without/loss are forms from nouns, like in topless or braless) and by so are linguistically feasible, there's also the words that does exist in use and, indeed, are possibility, and by so are linguistically feasible (it's the case of singular they, and other non binary pronouns are ze, xe,em, per, etc). Its the same things for other languages, french (iel, al ul ol ael etc) german (dey, hen, em, sier, and en) spanish (elle).

There's not linguistic obstacle to the respect of pronouns of someone, so why add this term ? It should be removed.

Same for "technically". The only technique we use to wrote those non binary pronouns is keyboard, and all the letter we need to wrote them are on keyboard and nothing can physically nor technically stop us from typing the letter in the good order to write a non binary pronouns. The only obstacle is an ideologic one (conservative and enbyphobic) but it's not connected to technique. So the add of the word "technically" open the door to ideological conservative abuse and should be removed. (Same for linguistically).

The add of those words don't follow the path of inclusion of the UCoC and need to be removed. Scriptance (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. There is no need to add "linguistically or technically feasible" unless one is openly willing to accept misgendering as a principle. Hyruspex (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. There are terms that are in increasingly common use in many languages (English: singular they; français: iel; español: elle; Deutsch: sier) but are not yet universally accepted. Many members of the WMLGBT+ User Group have found that "linguistically or technically feasible" (and "compelled speech") are often used as an excuse for some editors to avoid respecting trans users' gender because they don't like singular they (and, presumably, they don't like the concept of non-binary gender identities), rather than it actually being linguistically problematic.

Surely part of the purpose of the UCoC is to defend and protect those editors from minoritised and under-represented groups who have historically been — and still are — recipients of such abuse from the wider editing community. Part of the purpose is to ensure the censure of users who previously — and currently — have a sense of impunity about misgendering other editors.

This is an active problem on several projects, with long-standing editors from minoritised communities being harassed and encouraged to leave projects. If the Foundation is serious about both countering systemic biases and diversifying the editor community, then we need to be able to enforce UCoC provisions against transphobic (and other queerphobic) forms of abuse, just as we need to address the hostility experienced by editors from other minoritised and under-represented groups. — OwenBlacker (Talk), for the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, 18:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In reply both to Owen and Hyruspex...recognizing that there can be linguistic and technical barriers to using pronouns/terms/descriptions is not accepting misgendering. I am concerned that people are fixating on European languages as was done in the initial comment here, with gendered structures and pronouns, and with existing and growing societal acceptance of non-binary pronouns. Obviously, I would expect anyone using one of the many languages with pronouns that are equivalent to my pronouns in my native language (English, they/them) to do so, because it is linguistically and technically feasible. Please do not assume that every language has this relatively moldable gendered structure, or even gendered pronouns.

Obviously, people who are intent on harassment on the basis of pronouns will pick whatever excuse is least asinine to try and justify their actions. In some cases, it may be the "linguistic and technical" bit, but that does not mean that linguistic and technical implications for using gendered pronouns and language do not exist. Bad excuses are bad excuses, and can be recognized as such without taking unnecessarily hardline stances. There is not much benefit that can come from trying to argue that this clarifier is going to correlate to some systemic failure in enforcement...because the assumptions behind that fail to recognize how conduct enforcement works. Conduct enforcement involves, and relies on, the navigation of nuances and exceptions and the weighing of validity of excuses. If someone who engaged in misgendering harassment is arguing that their language doesn't have non-binary pronouns (or that they're not "accepted"), and it does...that's a clear violation of the UCOC and it's irrelevant what excuses they point to.

Also see this relevant series of comments after the UCOC roundtable at Wikimania. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 18:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vermont: I read the discussion, and I don't still see the necessity of "linguistic and technical feasability" because the respect of one's gender identity and expression can pass by other means than pronouns in non-gendered language. Trans and non-binary people exists in those communities and developed specific linguistics tools, as they did in gendered language, so there's just need to respect those tools, whatever the language is. SO it's still "linguistic and technical feasible" but with other means. It will always been, but in different manner, so there's no need to add those two words which are used by transphobic people to misgender trans/enby people in gendered language. See this section and here to have a summary up, in french, sorry.Scriptance (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

There may be both linguistic and technical issues, even though they are rare and I totally agree that they should not be used as an excuse just because one doesn’t like to respect others’ gender identities.

• Linguistic: Suppose someone’s preferred pronoun is “ze”. With which pronoun would you refer to this person in German or French? Neopronouns don’t have direct translations in other languages. You’ll probably use a gender-neutral pronoun, but that would still not 100% respect what ze uses. Another possibility is using the English pronoun in non-English text, but that’s harder to understand and may still not be what that person actually prefers.
• Technical: As long as you type your message on a talk page, there should indeed be no technical issues. However, when the text is produced by the software or a template, the software/template may not be able to figure out the person’s preferred pronoun. Both the software and templates can access the pronoun set in the preferences, but the preferences allows only one non-binary pronoun (which is “they” in English); if someone prefers a neopronoun, templates can only use it if a system for storing neopronouns machine-readably is developed on the given wiki and the given user actually uses it (writing it on the user page in free text won’t suffice), while the software cannot use it reliably at all (individual software messages could be updated to act like templates, but the number of software messages is so large, and continually growing, that changing all of them is practically impossible).

Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• linguistic, that's linguistically feasible so your argument is out of the point. ANd it's an hypothesis, no usual facts. Plus, for your information, it's always better to ask a non binary person wich pronouns she use in her own language, but you can still do it for other languages. It's usal to see on twitter "they/elle".
• Technical. Do you have any basis or exemple (of templates, of software, of people using those in theirs casuals interractions with others?) ? For the moment it's only hypothesis, I build the UCoC on concret. Plus the UCoC regulates interaction between users, not between software and users. In fact "Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves" is adressed to wikipedian, not to software.Scriptance (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  There are several thousand languages in the world. What if there is one where it is not possible what you demand? They are then forced the either stopp communicating or violating the UCOC. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 19:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Linguistic: What if the user whom you want to mention doesn’t speak the language you want to mention them in? People may specify their preferred pronouns in multiple languages, but no one will specify them in all languages, especially not in ones that they don’t speak. And yes, it’s an hypothetical example, but it’s realistic, isn’t it?
  • Technical: There are some languages (as far as I remember Slavic ones) where even the greeting is gendered. I couldn’t find an actual example for that, but I could find e.g. ru:Шаблон:Hello, which mentions the user’s mentor in a gendered way (open the wikicode and search for gender). And I also think that for this point, software localization should also be in scope – as long as software isn’t translated by AI, there is a human in the end typing the text (even if they don’t address it at a specific other human), whom this rule can be addressed at.

  Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed there are thousands of languages, and English comes with hundreds of variants and dialects. So a hard requirement to use certain pronouns implies a hard requirement that people speak to you in a subset of the available languages or variants. For example, in a mostly genderless language like spoken Finnish, minä (I) comes in different variants depending on the region, so requiring people to use a certain variant would imply requiring that they learn a certain regional variant of the language.

  People often want to tell others in which languages they prefer to communicate: we have babels for a reason! It's common for English-language users to be upset when they receive messages in a non-Latin script. Writing messages in English will get you blocked in some non-English wikis. Communicating in certain variants of English may get you in trouble due to misunderstandings with people who think they understand the individual words you're using but don't understand the overall meaning of your language.

  It's impossible to require that everyone know every language and variant thereof. So in practice I believe that the idea here is to make people communicate less. If you're not sure how your message will be received, just don't communicate. It's a very common approach in social media websites, where typically there's too much communication. Nemo 19:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi: I remember you! It was you who already answered me on the same subject, with the same out of nowhere argumentation and based on non-realistic hypothesis. It's a bit strange.

• Linguistic Why would you mention one person in a language she doesn't spoke? It's nonsense and non-realistic (How can you even honestly think it is?)
• Technically As I said to Vermont, enby and trans people are not existing only in english language, but all around the world, and by so, developped linguistic strategy in differents languages, hardly-gendered or non-gendered one's, so people just need to inform themselves in enby and trans linguistics tools in the appropriate language and to use thoses tools. Easy. And for the software translation, as I did some, there's just need to open the discussion with other translators to have non-misgendering translations. For the template, I don't speak russian, and I don't even know if the template is used a lot, or what it means, so we can't discuss about it (and maybe the {gender} parameter is regulated throught translatewiki or others, by the way, following the UCoC, there's just need to modify the template to have at least a non-misgendring template). Easy.

Again, you can't bring valid arguments to keep "linguistic or technically" words because they don't exist.So please stop and move on. Thanks. Scriptance (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I am a non-binary person who continues to be non-binary when I use, or am described in, non-English languages, but I recognize that some languages simply do not have grammatical gender of this kind, or whose grammatical gender (or aspects of it) is truly limited to binary, i.e., there being no non-binary alternatives.

I will note: I personally (as someone with no knowledge of this besides a few news posts/fluent friends) do not think that using non-binary gender in French is anywhere near linguistically infeasible...or the other European languages you noted in earlier replies. Your argument seems to be that I should recognize languages other than English exist, my argument is that you should recognize languages other than European ones exist. Not every language has gendered pronouns. Not every language has gendered speech. Some have incredibly strict gendered speech. Some have relatively flexible gendered speech. Some governments impose restrictions on speech, whether positive or negative from a gender equity standpoint.

The "linguistic and technically feasible" caveat is necessary to allow for the infeasibility of using gender-affirming speech in languages where such speech is infeasible, not where it is simply not preferred by a given speaker. I understand the concern about it actively being used as an excuse, but we cannot remove legitimate exceptions because people may try to misuse them. It is the job of whatever enforcing entity will exist, likely the U4C, to ensure positive enforcement of this. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm enby too. No my argument isn't limitated to no english languages, but also to non-european language, no matter how they are gendered. I think there's enby people in those languages who develops linguistics strategies, because of their agentivity they can do that. It's way I don't think there's linguistic issue in any language or technical ones. If the language is non-gendered it's good for enby people, if it's hardly gendered they surely developped tools to be nicely gendered, there's just need to respect and use those tools. The problem is that french admin stick on the "linguistic or technially feasible" and the "neutral masculine" from the french academia to misgender enby people, and they hardly oppose to any involvment from anyone not belonging to wpfr Scriptance (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguity in the question

The language on this page and on the actual vote page swaps and switches between two different questions. I see the question written as "Êtes-vous favorable à l'application du Code de Conduite Universel sur la base des directives révisées?", which in English is something like "Do you support the implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct on the basis of the revised enforcement guidelines?" This, plus the attempted explanations on the page m:Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines/Voter information, could either mean:

1. Do you support the implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct on the basis of the enforcement guidelines (which happen to have been revised since they were originally proposed)? or
2. Do you support changing the way that the Universal Code of Conduct is implemented by shifting from the earlier version of the enforcement guidelines to the revised version of the enforcement guidelines?

These are two completely different questions. The first question is about support or opposition to the statement of UCOC principles together with the UCOC enforcement guidelines. The second question says that the UCOC is a fait accompli and implies that it is going to be implemented with either the old guidelines or the new ones; the community is given the choice of choosing between the old and the new guidelines.

The result of the vote will be open to eternal debates about interpreting the community's intention: support/opposition to UCOC, or support/opposition to changing the enforcement guidelines. If the dominant vote is "yes", then WMF can interpret it as support for a global UCOC+enforcement; if the dominant vote is "no", then WMF can insist on the interpretation in question 2, meaning yes for UCOC but with the pre-revision guidelines. This is a bit like the votes for the EU "Constitutional Treaty": either vote yes, or if the vote is no, then vote again or shift the vote from people to parliaments.

I understand that many well-intentioned people put in a lot of work on this, but somehow the result is nowhere near the standards that can be expected from a wiki community. Having a major vote on an ambiguous question, where one of the interpretations is that there is no possibility of opposing the UCOC at all, is close to pointless. Boud (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree the question is confusing. In English I think the only reasonable interpretation is (1) and I think this vote is already a re-do of the previous vote which failed to gain support for the UCoC.

I wonder if translators were given guidance on how to interpret the text of the question, and whether anyone checked for inconsistencies across the translations. Nemo 07:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, the previous vote passed (albeit, using the standards that the WMF just chose, which wasn't being pushed by more than a tiny minority of the editors who attended a ratification call); but neither that vote nor this one can be interpreted as being exactly either of these.

The phrasing on the voter information page is both clearer and less clear. It's much more targeted on the "enforcement guidelines", but it lacks a top-level line just clearly stating the vote question. Since the page has lots of translation versions, that would still work language to language. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"Most important" in why we should vote?

I'd missed it the first time I read through the voter info page, but I'm confused by the single bullet point, stating Most importantly, voting will: Ensure that your Wikimedia project’s views are represented in the global vote.

This is confusing on a few different bases: surely, in practical terms, the most important effect of the vote is the actual role it plays in whether the(se) enforcement guidelines are implemented or not?

Less severely "wikimedia project" is a little unclear - is "Wikipedia" or "English Wikipedia" my wikimedia project? They have my utmost empathy on this point - trying to find phrases that work for both language-split local projects (e.g. en-wiki, fr-wiktionary) and singular projects (Wikidata, Wikicommons) is hard just in English (as we over in the movement charter process are discovering for ourselves!) But I am interested which was intended. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The claim Most importantly, voting will: Ensure that your Wikimedia project’s views are represented in the global vote is absurd, and again suggests a lack of serious wiki editing of the text. It is extremely unrealistic to claim that participation of one individual will ensure that the collective view of that individual's project is represented in the vote. The diversity of individuals' views within each project is huge. Even someone wishing to represent the collective views of the project is unlikely to be able to do so without a lot of work (e.g. start and wait for a clear closing of an RfC in that project on how the project should answer the ambiguous question of the vote). And even if individuals could, in principle, do this, would they in reality? Especially given that this is a secret vote, without any pretence at representative democracy, how many of us will/did try to represent their projects? Boud (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And?

Sorry about ignoring the infobar earlier. Anyways, the following sentence seems strange to me: "We want these communities to be positive, safe and healthy environments for anyone who joins (and wants to join) them." The and implies a scenario where a user could potentially join a community against their will. This seems to me to be something that is not really possible in how our wikis work: there's no mandatory participation and the limited "social" features of the sites (namely user and discussion pages) are all configurable by logged in users. A simple change to "or" would be better to properly signify a union of the two groups which were likely the intended objects: people who have joined + people who want to join. 2803:4600:1116:12E7:4558:3292:C28C:EF8F 07:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

And when you change it to a "or", someone will come and ask what of the two possibilties is now true. Also, the intended meaning is "...anyone who joins and anyone hasn't joined yet but wants to/ has intentions to join" Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 08:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"Listen and try to understand what Wikimedians of different backgrounds want to tell you. Be ready to challenge and adapt your own understanding, expectations and behaviour as a Wikimedian."

This seems very problematic to me, as it sounds like if someone doesn't like what I might say, or how I might say it, it therefore becomes MY obligation to adapt to THEIR preferences, when the other party adapting to mine is an equally valid expectation. I'm a foul-mouthed American who has the right to free speech, something many countries sadly lack. As one example, just because the 'Swastika" symbol is illegal in Germany, it is NOT illegal here, and if you were to visit Japan, you would see them frequently as it is a religious symbol to many Japanese people. I think it relates to Buddhism, but I'm not certain of that, only that seeing them, while at first was a culture shock for me, as despite the fact they're legal here, they are rarely displayed for any reason, sans endorsing the government of WWII Germany.

I'm new to being a registered 'editor' here, and have yet to edit anything, though I came very close to something I thought could have been written by an unapologetic socialist. The letter of this rule implies that I have to adapt to his or her political philosophy rather than challenging or changing it.

KevyKevTPA (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

No need to went on godwin point at first message. The text quoted just ask to have empathy and to consider others as sincer (rules that are already on wp -at least on wpfr). It's nothing special, normally you adapt yourself to news things, it's just enjoining you to do it. Scriptance (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't change what works.

I mean that is unnecessary to change thing what works. Whiny15 (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

What happens to your account if you do not agree to follow the UCoC?

I voted against the enforcement of the UCoC, as I believe that what you had already worked, and there is no need to mess with something which was perfectly fine as it was. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. With this having been said (and I'm not for one moment, intimating that I will refuse to abide by the UCoC), what would happen to any user across wikis, were they to refuse to abide by the UCoC? Would they be blocked globally, or would this be similar to the "Foundation ban" for, for example, making legal threats, etc? Just curious :) DaneGeld (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@DaneGeld - unless you're in one of the much reduced category of individuals required to specifically affirm the UCOC, "nothing" is the direct answer, in the sense that the refusal isn't sanctionable. Actually violating the UCOC would be akin to violating any other conduct policy on your (or their) projects, assuming that anyone is willing to enforce it (which would be likely on your three main projects, for example).

If no-one enforced issues covered by the UCOC but not by their local conduct policies, that's what the U4C and systemic project failures cases are for. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

[Not a UCOC committee member, nor a staff member - my $0.02 Nosebagbear (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Current status

Hi. m:Universal Code of Conduct/Project#Current status seems to be outdated. Furthemore, what are the next steps, beyond the review of the Enforcement guidelines by the Board of Trustees?

Best, — Jules* ^talk 12:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"without expectations"

From section 2:

> This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without expectations based on age, mental or physical disabilities, [...]. Nor will we make exceptions based on standing, [...].

This dictates that the rule of "behaviour being founded in respect" apply without expectations based on age and such. I do not comprehend what this statement would imply without reading between the lines, but I'm not a native English speaker. In the French translation, it's translated as "et ce sans distinction d’âge," ("without distinction based on age,"), which appears to be something else.
Should the English text be reworded for clarity? M!dgard (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@M!dgard: This is more likely to be seen at m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct Pppery (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Open letter

I think it's over, so I can write. The adoption of UCOC is the worst process I have seen in the Movement and the Foundation. Complete disregard for communities, terrible English-centric text containing untranslatable terms, disregard for members on discussion pages, closed decision-making mechanisms.

I am glad that it was finally accepted, but I hope that the Foundation has drawn the right conclusions and those who organized this process will no longer make any decisions and will be expelled from all processes. Iniquity (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

EG?

@GVarnum-WMF and PEarley (WMF): shouldn't the Policy:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines be linked anywhere in this doc? Maybe a "see also" part in the footer? David Wadie Fisher-Freberg (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It should've been done already, especially since non-WMF editors aren't allowed to do it themselves. Tagging User:GVarnum-WMF and User:PEarley (WMF). Adrianmn1110 (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg and Adrianmn1110:, thanks for the note, I've added a template at top linking to the guidelines. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Typo edit request

in <!--T:87-->

Cross-wiki

Affecting or occuring on more than one project. See also: Global.

/s/occuring/occurring

Thank you, --M7 (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@M7: Fixed it! Thank you for the alert! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@GVarnum-WMF - are we able to provide a list of typos in the UCOC for correction? There's quite a few and fixing them to let us focus on the substantive issues when we get to amendment time, that would be great. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to submit them, although I would need to run them past our Legal department before adopting any changes (sometimes what someone sees as a typo is actually an intentional term usage by a lawyer). --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are we over in Foundation Wiki?

Why have we moved both the dictated policy, the community-backed policy, and the discussions on the two over to Foundation-wiki?

Foundation-wiki is both harder to find, harder to edit (especially if you don't have an account), and splits from meta where these aspects should logically belong. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

As part of that, dozens of links in both the live and archived talk pages have become broken links - does Foundation-wiki have the bots that would correct such issues on major wikis? If not, they'll need to be corrected manually by whoever moved them. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

We will work to update those links once non-archive content is dealt with. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I am also curious why moving to Foundation Wiki. It would be difficult to maintain translation page and facilitate discussion, since there is only few volunteer admins (exclude Global Sysop as what they can only do is anti-vandalism). Thanks. SCP-2000 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@SCP-2000: Can you elaborate on how it will be difficult to maintain? Note that there will be a growing number of staff-based admins as this wiki gets used more, but I am curious about ideas related to more volunteer admins. Regarding the reduction of duplication, the pages have always been "officially housed" on this wiki - the duplicates on Meta-Wiki existed because this wiki could not previously facilitate translations or discussions. As those barriers have been removed, the primary reasons for duplication no longer existed. Given the legal reasons behind hosting the "primary versions" on this wiki have not changed, the problems with maintaining duplications appear and potential benefits with addressing them seem to outweigh risks (some of which are inherit with this wiki existing at all). However, I am at this point more interested in trying to address potential problems with this less duplicate oriented setup than debating a return to a setup we already know was not working. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It just says loud and clear, that the UCoC is no project from the community any more, but something against the community by some usurpers in the ivory tower.

The WMF is just the janitor of the real bosses, the communities, it must never ever have the last word over the real bosses, that would be a putsch. Sänger (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sänger:: I believe that there is a saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune". Editors contribute by waiving their copyright, but the WMF puts up the cash and also absorbs the knocks if there are legal issues. Martinvl (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

"without expectations based on age ... Nor will we make exceptions"

Is this a typo?

This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without expectations based on [without exceptions based on] age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field. Nor will we make exceptions based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement

. Gitz6666 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666:, thank you for catching that. Text has been updated. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This includes imposing schemes on content intended to marginalize or ostracize

Not the first person to ask, and not the first time I'm asking. What does the last UCoC sentence mean? Is this "imposing schemes" + on + "content intended to marginalize", or is it "imposing schemes on content" (which are) "intendend to marginalize". Marginalize or ostracize whom? Any real-world examples of such behavior? Translators had a hard time understanding this sentence. PEarley (WMF)?

"I could have done it in a much more complicated way," said the Red Queen, immensely proud. Ponor (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

In context, the entire sentence seems redundant. Removing it would make the code less complicated still. AP295 (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I imagine translators have a hard time with the UCoC for the same reason they'd probably not be able to translate "smoke free" into "smoking is prohibited" unless they already understood the idiom. Much of the UCoC seems to be constructed in the vacuous dialect of contemporary PR, rather than by aiming for a clear and easily-interpreted set of rules. AP295 (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed revisions - values both civility and scholarly inquiry

Excerpted from meta:User:Jaredscribe/UCoC, where I will be proposing more revisions for the annual review.

Policy:Universal Code of Conduct § 2 – Expected behaviour

"In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be should be founded in civility, scholarly inquiry, logical discourse, collegiality, respect for verifiable truth and for eachother. solidarity and good citizenship."

These changes are proposed for the reasons stated by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics to justify his abandonment of the Platonic w:theory of forms: While both are dear, piety requires us to honor truth above our friends. --Book I chapter 6, 1096a.16. But the phrase as currently formulated in the official UCoC neglects to mention scholarly discourse, inquiry, or logic as valuable behaviors. It offers instead 5 synonyms for civility, which taken together may be used to imply and enforce "compliance" with a group consensus, which would be a recipe for w:groupthink. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jaredscribe: While I agree with the spirit of this, I think that all of these things are predicated upon critique. "Civility" is often used somewhat euphemistically to mean agreeableness, itself favorable to assent. If anything, the UCoC needs a statement that protects critique and critical contributions. It also has far too many redundancies. Generally it contains too much redundant or meaningless PR language. Christopher Hitchens put the point rather well when he wrote " In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom." Of course he wasn't talking about Wikimedia, but the point is no less relevant here. AP295 (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes - Civil, logical, scholarly critique should be protected, even when it is in dissent to whatever opinion is prevailing. Have you considered writing an w:WP:Essay with you opinions? Do you have a user page somewhere with a manifesto? A proposed rewrite of the w:WP:Civility policy? I concur that there is a need for this, and my proposal was a start. You may contribute to my m:User:Jaredscribe/UCoC#Commentary and Analysis, if you wish. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A manifesto? Do I strike you as a Ted Kaczynski? I hope that's not the impression I give. I would like to see a provision that protects critical contributions and another rule that prohibits dishonesty. AP295 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Though since you've asked, I do have a relevant essay on wikiversity, https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Policy_and_Standards_for_Critical_Discourse. It's a critique on the design and policy of popular user-driven websites. I may end up moving it if wikiversity ever improves the documentation on content organization and namespaces and I figure out exactly how to organize my essays. However, I am blocked on wikipedia and the essay is only partly about Wikipedia anyway. AP295 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

They are not predicated upon critique, but upon conduct and discussion. Not all discussion must or should be critical, although critique is one aspect of discussion that should be protected when it is done competently and in good-faith. Much critique on wikipedia is not done that way, in my experience, which is the motivation for guidelines like this.

I propose that all dialectic - including talk pages, edit summaries, user talk pages, in person meetups, multiple live drafts (as in w:WP:Bold-refine - should be founded in "scholarly inquiry" and "analytical discourse" ('logical discourse'), which includes critique but starts before goes far beyond it.

Jaredscribe (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, I agree with the spirit and think such a change would be an improvement, but that's not saying much. Deleting the sentence entirely would be better yet. Phrases like founded in scholarly inquiry still amount to wooden language. That is, non-specific and somewhat meaningless. A statement such as I suggest would protect dissenting contributions and critique without such ambiguity. AP295 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I should say though that I'd be quite surprised if they obliged my request in the near term. It's not as though the people who make these decisions are oblivious to these points. On the contrary. Hitchens also had something to say about this, (or rather Chomsky did, but I don't have Chomsky's original quote) "Noam Chomsky, a most distinguished intellectual and moral dissident, once wrote that the old motto about “speaking truth to power” is overrated. Power, as he points out, quite probably knows the truth already, and is mainly interested in suppressing or limiting or distorting it. We would therefore do better to try to instruct the powerless. " It's irritating how often I have to cite Hitchens. It makes me look like a fanatic (which I'm not), but I suppose I should be glad to have at least one 'authority' to cite. Anyway, the points should still be made, and one should not presume they're lost upon the decision makers. AP295 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)