Page MenuHomePhabricator

RFC: Establish a list of gray/grim Wikimedia sites
Open, Stalled, LowPublic

Description

  • Affected components: Projects
  • Engineer(s) or team for initial implementation: TBD.
  • Code steward: TBD.

Motivation

Some Wikimedia projects (often smaller language Wikipedia instances like in Croatian Wikipedia) are packed with or controlled by admins that have highly problematic behavior (in spectrum from passive-aggressive to authoritarian). These situation keeps potential contributors to leave the movement or stay away (if they are informed of it ) or it frustrates new users, as they are surprised by unexpected situation of hostility and environmental toxicity.

Unfortunately as it seems hard to resolve these issues easy and/or quickly, it would be important to reduce harm.
Instead of repeating the frustration for all newcomers over and over *(damaging the reputation of whole of Wiki ecosystem), there should be a simple, practical and proactive way to GRAYLIST such projects and marked them obviously distinct visually.
As WMF is in control of branding and hosting it should not be too hard to do this top-down so that all users are (explicitly visually) informed that project is graylisted as it has issues reported and that use and that contributions should be considered with that in mind.

Why graylisting? It is important not to fully blacklist them, as content and other aspects might be good, but to make it known that they are 'grayed' due to suspicion of malfunctioning setup in management or toxic working atmosphere.

Requirements

(TBD: Specify the features or criteria that need to be met.)

  • Data on misconduct and abuse cased should be collected and presented
  • Such projects should be questioned, publicly lists and actively observed
  • Project should have a notice on top page at least that it s being questioned and observed by WMF (Security & Safety team)
  • Project should have at least all the logos of WMF grayed out so it is visually obvious something is distinct-different
  • New users should be given explicit and easy to follow instructions on how to report issues (not complicated and time+energy draining procedures and protocols)

Exploration

(TBD: Use this space for data gathering, status quo, proposals, other considerations etc.)

Event Timeline

Zblace created this task.May 9 2020, 12:13 PM
Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptMay 9 2020, 12:13 PM
Salgo60 added a subscriber: Salgo60.May 9 2020, 1:46 PM
Bawolff added a subscriber: Bawolff.May 9 2020, 6:26 PM

Imo, this proposal is inapropriate to a hackathon/phabricator. Its very literally an extremely contentious community social issue and should be discussed through normal community processes on meta

Zblace added a comment.May 9 2020, 7:18 PM

I can see rationality behind your comment. I would for sure not expect that something is fully developed and finished as a regular working code, but this Request for Comment is really just a request for people to express interest and comment on what could be done so that a proposal could start articulation collectively by people who have hacking as a focus, rather then just people who have policy focus. Does that make any sense?
@Bawolff

@Zblace: Hi, is this a Wikimedia Hackathon 2020 session? If it is, for when and where is it scheduled?

Zblace added a comment.May 9 2020, 7:37 PM

I did not fix it yet, but I am flexible and free to do it any reasonable
time tomorrow 12-24 hours from now.
Do you have suggestion when?

I'm not sure how to interpret that comment or if/how it answers my question? :)

It can be, but does not have to be. It is not scheduled yet. I have flexibility today, but no idea in which timezones are people who expressed interest, so I would suggest that I remain available for later part of the day for me (+2 Central European Time here), so basically from 6 to 12hours from now and rest of you voice your preference *(depending on timezone and availability)...
@Aklapper
@Bawolff
@Denny
@Salgo60
OK? *(or there is a better way to do this)

I can see the use and reasons for this but it needs to go through community discussions to see what opinion is and how communities would like it to work.

There should also probably be some form of wmf involvement in its design and approach.

Hence, maybe TechCom-RFC or Community-consensus-needed tag should be added ?

Yes, I agree. Please add if you can.

Aklapper changed the task status from Open to Stalled.May 10 2020, 10:53 AM
Aklapper lowered the priority of this task from Medium to Low.

As per scope this has nothing to do with TechCom-RFC (there is not much "tech" in here and even less software architecture) and I don't think this should have started as a Phabricator task at all as this is nothing to implement at a Hackathon without previous and wider discussion... setting task status to stalled.

Zblace renamed this task from RFC: Establishing of GRAY-grim WIKIPEDIA LIST to RFC: Establishing of GRAY-grim WikiMedia LIST.May 11 2020, 6:09 AM
Zblace updated the task description. (Show Details)

I updated the name to be inclusive of all WikiMedia and not just WikiPedia
projects.

Added a few more points in description and tried to clear the text
*(not-native speaker)...
Hope it is more clear and acceptable. Would love to hear of ideas of
others.

@Zblace: Could you please fix the task summary and describe what "GRAY-grim" or "LIST" is and what problem that solves, and fix spelling (neither "WikiMedia" nor "WikiPedia" exist)? Reading the task summary I have no idea what is being asked for in this task, and why. Thanks :)

Zblace renamed this task from RFC: Establishing of GRAY-grim WikiMedia LIST to RFC: Establishing of GRAY/GRIM WIKIMEDIA LIST.May 11 2020, 3:49 PM
Zblace updated the task description. (Show Details)
Zblace removed a subscriber: Aklapper.

Changes made. Thank you for input!

Aklapper renamed this task from RFC: Establishing of GRAY/GRIM WIKIMEDIA LIST to RFC: Establish a list of gray/grim Wikimedia sites.May 11 2020, 5:34 PM

This is a similar project.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/User_reporting_system

The Wikimedia Foundation issued a mandate around 2014 that all Wikimedia user groups should develop some internal system for collecting reports of harassment. This never made sense, because it is a technical nightmare. That WMF mandate is published somewhere, it came from support and safety. The community turned the burden back to WMF to ask that they set up a reporting system. There have been multiple over the years.

The WMF promised to set up this one. In theory, all we need is a ticket system to collect reports, and a system for granting access to the reports to whomever is trusted. Harassment is everywhere. The current WMF response over the past few years is ignore and avoid discussion, except for internally or in highly pre-planned public talks with limited community participation. I understand this, and I place no fault on anyone for this very reasonable present strategy.

What Zblace is proposing is a technical problem. The social practice should form around a conventional technical tool for users making reports, and it is not the case that users need to define some need for some bespoke software solution because there is nothing remarkable about the kind of reports that need to be made.

Nattes added a subscriber: Nattes.May 14 2020, 5:43 PM
Fae added a subscriber: Fae.May 14 2020, 5:48 PM

I would not say similar as my proposal is proactive notification, but it is related for sure.

The Wikimedia Foundation issued a mandate around 2014 that all Wikimedia user groups should develop some internal system for collecting reports of harassment. This never made sense, because it is a technical nightmare. That WMF mandate is published somewhere, it came from support and safety. The community turned the burden back to WMF to ask that they set up a reporting system. There have been multiple over the years.

sure

The WMF promised to set up this one. In theory, all we need is a ticket system to collect reports, and a system for granting access to the reports to whomever is trusted. Harassment is everywhere. The current WMF response over the past few years is ignore and avoid discussion, except for internally or in highly pre-planned public talks with limited community participation. I understand this, and I place no fault on anyone for this very reasonable present strategy.

hm...think some per-emptive action is missing, setting the atmosphere. there is a good reason why things end up sub-optimal

What Zblace is proposing is a technical problem. The social practice should form around a conventional technical tool for users making reports, and it is not the case that users need to define some need for some bespoke software solution because there is nothing remarkable about the kind of reports that need to be made.

True, but also even the act of making reports should not be something to be pressured on to new and sporadic users - no?

Hey all - I want this proposal to advance in July. Anyone willing to help me get to Meta or elsewhere and get some visibility?

Zblace updated the task description. (Show Details)Jun 17 2020, 6:01 AM

Hi, the Wikimedia Hackathon 2020 took place two months ago. Can you please provide an update on this task? If this task was worked on and finished, then please change the task status to resolved. If this task is still valid and should stay open, then please associate an active project tag to this task so this task can be found on an active project workboard. Thanks!

@Aklapper I have some time to work on this in near future, but I would also need some help to figure out how to start a project and have a workboard...last time I tried it looked like I can not have that with my type of account. Can I get more privileges to be able to initiate project and open workboard for it so this can be moved?