Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Enforcement/Wikimedia Commons community/es
Wikimedia Commons (conocido comúnmente como Commons) es un repositorio de medios libres que sirve como un almacén central de recursos multimedia para todos los proyectos de Wikimedia. Lanzado el 7 de septiembre de 2004, su comunidad es multilingüe y sumamente activa. Actualmente, cuenta con más de 42,000 usuarios activos, 210 administradores, 7 burócratas, 5 comprobadores de usuarios y 4 supresores. A marzo de 2021, alberga más de 70 millones de archivos y supera las 68 millones de páginas de contenido.
Commons es un proyecto de Wikimedia singular en diversos aspectos. A diferencia de las Wikipedias, donde la colaboración entre usuarios es frecuente, en Commons el desarrollo de contenido tiende a ser más individualista. Esto se debe principalmente a que la mayoría de las personas capturan y cargan sus propias imágenes y videos, lo que generalmente requiere poca o ninguna interacción entre los usuarios. No obstante, también se producen colaboraciones en concursos fotográficos, edición y mejora de imágenes, solicitudes y desarrollo de ilustraciones, gestión de categorías, entre otros.
Siendo una comunidad multilingüe, Commons cuenta con más de 50 áreas de discusión general en idiomas distintos al inglés para brindar soporte a los usuarios de diversas lenguas, lo cual lo distingue de otros proyectos de Wikimedia. Muchos colaboradores experimentados en Commons consideran otros proyectos en diferentes idiomas como sus wikis de origen, donde también pertenecen a grupos de usuarios avanzados. Esto permite que la comunidad se mantenga informada y consciente de ideas aplicables en diversos aspectos de la gobernanza del proyecto.
Políticas de comportamiento
A marzo de 2021, Wikimedia Commons cuenta con las siguientes políticas y directrices de comportamiento ratificadas. Aunque las políticas actuales parecen ser efectivas para el proyecto, se observó en la consulta que el proyecto carece de políticas y directrices ratificadas por la comunidad.
| Behavioral policies | Behavioral guidelines |
|---|---|
Además de las políticas y directrices oficiales, hay algunos ensayos escritos por colaboradores voluntarios que no tienen ningún estatus oficial, y que los demás editores no están obligados a seguir. Entre estos ensayos se incluyen mantenerse suave, no mantenerse suave, no realizar ataques personales, civismo, acoso, ser flexible, proselitismo, etc.
Proceso de facilitación
La comunidad fue informada en varias etapas. Antes de iniciar la consulta, se contactó a varios miembros activos y experimentados de la comunidad para notificarles sobre la próxima consulta sobre la aplicación del Código Universal de Conducta (UCoC). Dicha consulta comenzó el 18 de enero de 2021 y se realizó en una página dedicada de Wikimedia Commons. Tras su inicio, se publicó un aviso en el área principal de discusión para informar a todos los miembros de la comunidad. Anuncios similares se enviaron a la lista de correo de Commons, al grupo de Telegram y a los canales de IRC. Además, algunos usuarios experimentados y colaboradores activos en el tablón de ANU fueron notificados en sus respectivas páginas de discusión.
Tras unos días de análisis preliminares, se plantearon a los miembros de la comunidad algunas preguntas básicas sobre la aplicación del Código Universal de Conducta (UCoC), con el fin de conocer sus opiniones sobre cómo debería aplicarse en diversas situaciones complejas. Poco después, los usuarios con permisos avanzados (administradores, burócratas, checkusers, etc.) fueron contactados en sus páginas de discusión a través de la herramienta de entrega de mensajes, para recabar sus opiniones expertas. A medida que la discusión en el wiki prosperaba, se envió una encuesta mediante Google Forms para que los usuarios pudieran expresar su opinión de forma anónima.
El enlace de la encuesta fue publicado en las áreas de discusiones generales, en las páginas de discusión de los administradores y en el encabezado de la página de consulta. Al ser un proyecto multicultural, Commons dispone de áreas de discusiones generales específicas para cada idioma. Asimismo, se notificó a cincuenta áreas de discusión en idiomas locales sobre la consulta del Código Universal de Conducta (UCoC) en el wiki y sobre la encuesta. La consulta concluyó oficialmente el 28 de febrero de 2021.
La tasa de respuesta general fue positiva. La consulta en el wiki mantuvo un alto nivel de participación y actividad hasta el último día. Aunque varios miembros de la comunidad no estuvieron de acuerdo con el uso de Google Forms como plataforma para la encuesta, esta permitió obtener comentarios valiosos y útiles por parte de otros miembros de la comunidad.
Para recabar opiniones tanto de los usuarios que reportan problemas de conducta como de aquellos que se encargan de mediar o resolver conflictos entre usuarios, se contactó a varios colaboradores activos en el Tablón de Anuncios de Administradores/Problemas de Usuarios (ANU) mediante sus páginas de discusión, chat y correo electrónico, invitándolos a compartir sus perspectivas en la página de consulta. Casi todos respondieron de manera positiva, aportando sus comentarios en la página de consulta, a través de respuestas por correo electrónico y/o en discusiones uno a uno
Feedback summary
Feedback on the policy text
I think it would be beneficial if explicitly would have been stated what diversity stands for, and how members of the community are meant to deal with for instance potential conflicts between say LHBQTI and religious beliefs.
We found that users find the UCoC policy text is less useful in its current state. The policy text is vague and has many ambiguities, therefore writing improvements is required. Participants emphasised clearing/elaborating the meaning of many keywords like ‘vulnerable’, ‘accessible’, and ‘diversity’ to avoid conflicts between groups and cultures. There is also concern that the code’s vagueness can be an issue to determine if some conduct is sanctionable.
Peer support and support for targets of harassment
There is a mixed opinion on the functionality of the peer support group. In some cases, some community members think it is not helpful because there are issues that cannot be reported or resolved publicly. In other instances, peer support groups can be helpful, and there is a proposal of creating an ‘Empathy OTRS’ channel to support those in need. We also see suggestions for a safeguarding team that can provide support to victims. A safeguarding team can consist of on-wiki volunteers, affiliate members, and staff who will be skilled and trained to guide the victims and avoid harm. It is worth mentioning that those who provide such support through peer support groups or safeguarding teams are also prone to harassment. Therefore, they need to have the proper training to protect themselves. We also see suggestions to hire professionals who can provide expert support in conflict management.
Enforcement body
Most contributors prefer to see administrators as the primary enforcement body. This is also the currently adopted solution. We also see a considerable amount of support for a dedicating local body to resolve issues that local administrators cannot resolve. We found that although some form of committee to arbitrate behavioral issues is necessary, there are concerns like lengthy processing time, committee members being influenced by others, and skill and expertise of members are main obstacles to ensure a successful committee.
Reporting harassment
Commons has particular issues with the identification of users, privacy concerns, and their interaction with copyright legislation which will need particular care and concern to best handle.
UCoC enforcement starts with reporting. Currently, Commons uses Administrators’ Noticeboard/User problems (ANU) to report all user-related issues. Not all of them are in the scope of UCoC, but conduct issues are also reported there. Many minor conduct issues are reported and resolved on individual talk page discussions. The community prefers an easy reporting system.
To make reporting more accessible, a new MediaWiki design has been suggested. There is an insight about the ‘Report harassment’ button in Tagalog Wiktionary. Additionally, an idea about reporting users through the ‘Report this user’ button has been suggested. There are suggestions to have an individual wiki (SafetyWiki) to report harassment that occurred outside Wikimedia projects but related to their wiki contributions/role. T&S can provide staff time to check if the guidance is sufficient. To prevent misuse of the reporting system, providing diffs can be compulsory. Furthermore, feature development has been suggested to tag specific diffs as harassment edits to be categorized for further investigations.
The consultation finds that, despite being a highly active and mature community, it lacks when it comes to reporting harassment. It has only one public page for reporting harassment and no private channel to report. Commonly, reporters are subjected to further harassment when they go through public channels. We see several suggestions to create a confidential reporting system.
Harassment outside Wikimedia projects
The consultation finds harassment outside Wikimedia projects as a major challenge for UCoC enforcement. We see that verifiability of allegations is an issue as it might be complicated as evidence might not be public or accessible to act or mediate.
To resolve incidents that occur outside Wikimedia projects, it’s been suggested to establish a legal presence through partner NGOs so they can take care of legal proceedings through them. On-wiki specific policy provision is recommended to allow sanctions for off-wiki harassments.
False allegations
To prevent false allegations, strict measures like community sanctions after multiple false allegations have been proposed. We see that some users see UCoC as a weapon to harass someone through false allegations. Providing evidence (through diff in case of on-wiki evidence) should be mandatory for any kind of reports. Provocation behind the alleged user should also be considered as there are incidents of circular harassment, in which case someone harasses back when they get harassed in the first place.
Transparency of reporting and actions by WMF
Transparency is paramount, all users involved should be able to state their cases and defend themselves (preferably publicly) against all allegations. The system cannot succeed if it's not open, Wikimedia Commons should be as open as possible so all actions can receive fair scrutiny.
There are concerns from the community on the transparency of WMF’s actions, especially the global bans. The community is not aware of the reason for the bans. It is also unclear to the community if the actions were justified or to defend themselves. It has been suggested to consult the community where the accused user is active and consider their opinion before placing a global ban due to unacceptable conduct elsewhere.
The majority of participants have very little confidence in WMF's intention and ability to provide expected safety and protection to the volunteers facing harassment. The community is also concerned about the lack of transparency behind WMF's actions and fears the UCoC will be weaponized to keep more users out of Wikimedia space. The community would like to see WMF empowering the community and increasing transparency of its actions. Due to the overall lack of trust in WMF, many participants feel having a new code of conduct may not provide the desired protection they seek from WMF—especially in case of off-wiki harassment.
Survey
The survey received 75 responses. It had a combination of single and multiple-choice questions, short questions, and elaborative questions. Most participants provided responses to most questions.
-
Participants by gender identities -
While most participants are familiar with existing behavioral policies, but a sizeable portion are not sure -
Most participants prefer a private reporting system to avoid further harassments -
Almost half of the participants think it is not easy to report harassment -
More than half of the participants support UCoC and a sizable portion is neutral to it -
More than one-fourth of the participants faced off-wiki harassment
Conclusion
Wikimedia Commons is an exceptional Wikimedia project whose strong and functional existence is vital for the sustainability of all Wikimedia sites. It has some core behavioral policies and guidelines but lacks many more that pursue many users to act or enforce based on the policies they know and familiar with from their home projects. Being multilingual with a culturally diverse user base, this practice does not help to make uniform decisions and outcomes. Despite its large amount of contents and the related challenges, its governance lacks active human resources. Thus, active users are overwhelmed by their workload and also prone to face misbehavior due to their good faith actions.
We observe major concerns regarding UCoC policy text whose lack of clarity can be a challenge for proper site-wide enforcement at the end. Commons has an active on-wiki public reporting system and enforcement mechanism. However, many consultation participants indicated some serious limitations to this public reporting system and are in favor of a private reporting and arbitration process that can help the victims get the desired support without being harassed or attacked further. Although concerns of a bureaucratic, time-consuming, and flawed arbitration process remain.
Due to the project's nature of having a substantial number of lone contributors, a friendly and active peer support group and/or safeguarding team is deemed necessary for both protection and guidance of the vulnerable. Language and cultural diversity brought both positive opportunities and challenges to the project. Commons is gifted with its diverse and experienced community members hailing from other Wikimedia projects who deliver valuable experiences, ideas, skills, up-to-date information, and historic references from different cultures and project types. At the same time, it also brings local problems and disputes to Commons that burden the project and consumes valuable volunteer time.
Additionally, we see a sizable frustration from the community about WMF not providing adequate support to volunteers who face hardship, especially due to off-wiki harassments. The community wishes WMF to be more transparent in its actions and make sure they receive fair scrutiny. Despite the confusion and distrust on many matters and actions, several members are optimistic about WMF's good intention of creating a movement-wide effective code of conduct that can actually help the community by providing the support the community so deserves and desires.