Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Initial 2020 Consultations/Arabic

Acknowledging authorship

I propose changing [reconsidered, byline would be preferable, see below] However, before starting with the actual facilitation plan, I prepared my meta page to However, before starting with the actual facilitation plan, I (NNair (WMF)) prepared my meta page.

Rationale:

1. As a convenience to the reader to learn who the author is without having to click/tap through to the History.
   • When the reader sees “I” or “me” written in the first person, they naturally wonder to whom that refers.
2. Acknowledge and appreciate their work in conducting the consultation and writing up the results.

Alternate (and probably better) option: add a byline at the top of the page, along the lines of Report by NNair (WMF), June 2020

I would add the byline myself, but not sure what are the Meta-wiki policies on page ownership (noting they may very well be different from w:en:WP:OWN). Also, if {{tq}} isn’t the preferred quoting style here, then please let me know.

Pelagic (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed first uploader NNair was also the researcher and author. However, Nehta's babel-box lists languages en, hi, fr, and ma but not ar. Can anyone clarify this seeming contradiction? Pelagic (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I now see that Nehta uploaded most of the subpages sister to this one, so please advise who were the researchers and authors so that we may properly acknowledge them. Pelagic (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be Mervat (W?F), but I was only able to discover that because she has linked to Universal Code of Conduct/Discussions/Arabic Community in her report. Pelagic (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Pelagic (talk) Thank you for your inputs and questions. We understand that the questions about authorship can get confusing at times. But, please be informed that all the universal code of conduct pages linked here are authored by the Trust & Safety team. The individual owners on the page may vary, but all of this work is collaborative and represents work by the whole team. Who posts things publicly varies depending on multiple practical reasons. For this specific case, i.e. the individual summary reports in different languages, we adopted the standard format of T&S posting the reports in English and encouraging the individual facilitators to add the translated versions themselves. Some decided to do so, while others did not. We respect their decision. But, that does not take away their work or partnership in the overall project. I hope it answers your question.--NNair (WMF) (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Nehta, that doesn’t really address my concerns, though thankyou for the reply. I apologise for expressing myself unclearly, it’s because I was initially confused by the lack of attribution. The reports (not just Arabic, but this happened to be the one I read first) are written in a style that indicates a single main author for each, yet you say they were "authored by the … team". If the facilitators had assistance in preparing their reports, normal practice would be to list all contributors and their roles.

As employer, W?F may own the copyright, and I assume you have delegated authority to license it under CC-BY-SA + GFDL on their behalf. (“By saving changes, … you irrevocably agree to release your contribution …”) However, in many countries, authors have additional rights, such as the right of attribution.

I'm unclear on what you wrote about respecting their decision. Did the facilitators make a decision not to add a second translation, or did they make a decision to have their names suppressed?

I don’t understand why you (team / management, not you personally) would want to try to keep the authors "secret", but if you did, you could at least add a statement so that readers know the omission was on purpose and not by accident.

(Aside: the reports were interesting reading for me, and I thank all those involved for their contributions. I’m especially mindful that many were not writing in their native languages.) Pelagic (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

- - -

To put it differently: When I read something that makes me think “wut?”, I try to either improve it myself or make suggestions. That's the Wiki way. But your reply says this was done on purpose not by accident, so my question is “why?”. I'd like to understand the reasons. Pelagic (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Pelagic (talk) Thank you for the message. I am happy to know that you found the reports interesting! Now to answer your question - Please note that the reports were written by the Trust & Safety team, not a sole person. We understand that the word "I" needs a reference in the report. We had given our facilitators the option to publish the summaries themselves, as they were the main contributors. Some agreed to do that, while others did not want to add their names publicly. Those who did not want to add their names publicly had their reasons, both personal and professional. For example, our facilitators for some of the languages come from countries where governments do not fully support open and free knowledge. Therefore, to maintain the consistency, it was decided that I will post all the summaries in English and the facilitators can then add the translated versions themselves either through their WMF accounts or through their volunteer accounts. If you see "I", it means that the facilitator was not comfortable using their username because of privacy reasons.--NNair (WMF) (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)