Wikimedia Foundation/Legal/Community Resilience and Sustainability/Conversation Hour 2024 07 11

You are invited to the quarterly Conversation hour led by Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience and Sustainability, on 11 July 2024 at 18:00 UTC.

Maggie and others from the Community Resilience and Sustainability team will discuss Trust and Safety, the Universal Code of Conduct, Committee Support, and Human Rights.

This conversation will happen on Zoom. If you are a Wikimedian in good standing (not Foundation or community banned), write to let us know you will be attending the conversation and share your questions at answerswikimedia.org at least one hour before the conversation. Please place “CR&S” in the subject line. Someone will follow up with the Zoom details.

If you do choose to participate in this conversation, Maggie would like to bring some expectations to your attention:

I can't and won't discuss specific Trust and Safety cases. Instead, I can discuss Trust and Safety protocols and practices and approaches as well as some of the mistakes we've made, some of the things I'm proud of, and some of the things we're hoping to do.

I will not respond to comments or questions that are disrespectful to me, to my colleagues, or to anyone in our communities. I can talk civilly about our work even if you disagree with me or I disagree with you. I won't compromise on this.

You may view the conversation on YouTube and submit questions live in Zoom and on YouTube.

The recording, notes, and answers to questions not answered live will be available after the conversation ends, usually in one week. Notes from previous conversations can be found on Meta-wiki.

Notes

• In the case of users who may cause self-harm, while Trust and Safety is unable to contact authorities (e.g., individuals residing in Mainland China), how does the T&S support them? Apart from reaching out to Trust and Safety, how does the community member offer support to users who cause self-harm?

Maggie: When I first started, it was much more difficult to address such threats of self-harm because the only option was to call local authorities or hospitals to try to get help for this person. Thankfully we have professionals now who are able to work to address such needs, but this is not global. There are some areas where I wish we had these options. Some areas, a wellness check might put a person in danger. We do have public pages with professional resources for people to use around the world. We are always interested in learning about more resources to add to this list, which the Wikimedia Foundation does maintain to ensure the resources are reputable.

In these situations, it is important to listen without judgment. Encourage them to connect with professionals. What might have worked for you, might not work for them. If you know a person well, communicate with them afterward to check in on them. That can have a huge impact on them.

Jan Eissfeldt: Sometimes these situations of suicidal thoughts come about due to suicidal ideation or due to the stressors of being a Wikimedian in the jurisdiction they are in. Some affiliates have done some great work to support people in these situations. Other affiliates are not well positioned to provide such support. The constraints are really different compared to the Wikimedia Foundation. It might be reasonable to reach out to a local affiliate to see if they are able to provide support in that context.

Trust and Safety resources, Mental Health Resources, Mental Health Resource Center

• Your team has been supporting the MCDC since it was formed. Now that the Board has voted no, do you feel like you wasted your time? Do you feel like you wasted our time?

Maggie: No, it doesn’t feel like it was a waste of my team’s time or other people’s time – it was an important process for us to go through. These are complicated and challenging issues we need to think through. Looking forward to seeing the voting results and comments – we will learn a lot from that.

Kaarel: We have made progress on the conversations that are happening around Movement Strategy. Affiliates have shown up and they have alignment. We fell short on engaging with the individual contributor community. We are falling a bit short in talking across stakeholders. The big question is: where do we go from here? If we move forward in a constructive way, we can build on the good work the Movement Charter Drafting Committee has done. If we build on this, the time would not be a waste. I look forward to seeing how the pilots go. Let’s try to make the most of the pilots.

Board’s resolution

• In the context of Wikimedia communities, how should incidents where individuals' experiences and perspectives are undermined, dismissed or attacked, particularly in sensitive situations like conflict zones, be addressed to ensure compliance with human rights principles and the promotion of a respectful and inclusive environment?

Maggie: Advance planning is helpful - we need policies, practices and protocols which are based around solid human rights principles. It begins with advance work. We also need to invest the time in creating safe community spaces. It’s a lot to expect those under extreme pressure to show up as their best selves and it’s important for the rest of us outside of that conflict to be as generous as we can be to create a safe environment. Accountability is also important. If there are systems that create unfair environments for vulnerable groups, you have to do something about that.

Cameran: This is a very thoughtful question. One of the things that is very important is to ensure that we have a high level of cultural context. We work with a lot of local partners to make sure that we have the cultural context. We have internal office hours so Foundation staff can come learn and receive the best support for situations that they might be dealing with. We also have community office hours so people can connect with the Human Rights team. There is no such thing as total human rights compliance. We can just get closer.

Maggie: Context is important, especially when terms like “Buddy” in American culture might be occasionally used in kind ways and sometimes used in insulting ways. It can be hard to be generous when you’re in the situation and feeling triggered by the conversation.

• The U4C vote failed to get enough people over the threshold to create a full committee. Why do you think that happened?

Maggie: It’s constituted as a very large committee. Finding people who want to run and people who are well known enough and trusted in the community to make judgements requiring a great deal of neutrality might have been a challenge. I wonder if it had to do with the fact that some of the candidates were not well known. I’m interested to see what happens in the next election.

Jack: The Charter itself was an obstacle because it had very specific ways of running the election and how to fill the seats. I want to thank everyone who did apply, even if they were unsuccessful.

U4C special election

• Do you think the UCoC has made any difference?

Maggie: Yes, we tend to be a precedence-based community. We tend to respect the way things have always been. While there are challenges, I have heard many people tell me how the UCoC has made a difference for them, especially people who are responsible for enforcing the policies. Having clarity has made it easier for them to step into these difficult spaces. We make it easier when we make clear policies. It makes it clear about how people are supposed to show up in this space. The clearer we can be, the better it is for all of us.

• What would you have done differently if you could go back and start the MCDC process over?

Kaarel: There are plenty of things that could have been done differently. We are conducting interviews with the MCDC members to reflect on the process. We could have been more intentional with getting things going. Having an in-person meeting at the beginning could have helped but it was not a possibility [due to the Covid-19 pandemic]. It would have helped with the team building. Regarding drafting in public, it felt like being public and having conversations while drafting would be messy and it would be difficult to pull these conversations together. The methodological decision was to have a globally diverse group of people draft the content and regularly consult with the community. Reflecting back now, it is not clear if that was faster or if drafting in public would have been faster. We need to do better if we want to respond to the trends in the world around us. Not talking at each other, but truly listening to each other. My hope was the Movement Charter process would do that. I hope now that there is a sense of urgency, we can start having these conversations. Having Nhu, the project manager, from the start, would have been beneficial.

Nanour: From my perspective, I would have divided into groups to have focus areas instead of drafting as one large group focused on the whole Charter. The project communities should have been involved more in the process. Mostly it was the affiliates. Some community members had questions about the Charter, but did not feel connected to the Charter drafting process, even though they are the people who are on the projects 2 - 3 hours per day.

• What exactly was your role in the MC process?

Maggie: Our role was to support the creation of the MCDC and provide staff assistance to get the resources they needed. Committee support was something that was just starting when the MCDC was formed. It was my observation that we get in each other’s way a lot because we argue about responsibilities. I was hoping if we got the Movement Charter settled, then maybe we could move more swiftly to the other things.

• Can the community ask the Board to provide an edited Draft Charter which they would support?

Maggie: Of course, you can ask the Board anything. Whether they can dedicate the resources to that, I don’t know. The Board is a volunteer committee just like the other committees. They are hardworking, work many hours and have many things on their plates. If that is an ask, I’m happy to communicate that ask. It might have been better to divide the Movement Charter process into smaller pieces. It might have been too big of an ask for the movement to create a complete Movement Charter in the way that we tried to do. Some of the issues that were identified, these are critical things to do more quickly and do more about, like funding and technology. Maybe we do this in pieces instead of as one document.

• In terms of dispute resolution between the Global Council and Board, term limits, and Global Council composition quotas, does any of the Drafting Committee have or plan to work on such amendments?

Kaarel: Currently, many of these materials are in the supplementary documentation. These were the last things that were updated on Meta-wiki. These are actually not part of the materials being ratified. The idea is these materials will be handed to the Global Council to manage those details from there.

these supplemental documents were not part of the ratification process

Nhu: We will wait to see what the comments are from the vote and that will inform what the next steps are.

• Follow up question: Is this the plan to implement the Movement Charter in pieces?

Maggie: Yes, I imagine that is the plan. I would love for us to learn how to maximize the people and brains that we have working on these problems.

• Board candidates were asked, “From your perspective, what should the Wikimedia Foundation be prioritizing over the next 5-10 years, and why do you see these as the most important priorities?” I’d like to know your answer to that. If not for the whole Foundation, at least for the area where you work.

Maggie: Disinformation, misinformation, political conflict, the fight to define what is true and real. These are huge and complicated issues we are trying to deal with. Working together to answer these questions is a really big deal. In the next 5 - 10 years, we have to get better at working together. We have to get better at helping people learn to dispute core issues without losing sight of working together. What we say is of increasing importance to the world. We have to learn to work together quickly when things happen. The rise of people who are coordinating to change information on the Internet, these things concern me. It is time we figure out how to be one body, even though we occupy different positions in the movement.

• Anyone can propose amendments and then ask the board to consider a 2nd draft with any or all of such amendments. I wonder if any of the Drafting Committee members want to do it themselves?

Maggie: Being on this committee has been difficult. They have reconciled and discussed some really complex topics. Let’s celebrate what they have achieved and perhaps give them a break for a little bit. I have seen what the struggle has been like.

The Board shared with their resolution some next steps that they welcome feedback on

• You’ve supported committees for a while. Do you have any advice for somebody who wants to be a good committee member? What about who wants to be a good member of the Board of Trustees?

Jack: I manage a team called Committee Support. These committee members do a lot of work. Keep in mind the amount of time you have available. Timelines are typically tight. You have to collectively explore topics and make decisions. There are both asynchronous and synchronous meetings. You have to be mindful of the committee making decisions together and standing behind those decisions. We are looking for new committee members later this year. I encourage you to consider applying for a committee.

Maggie: We can disagree with each other and find constructive ways to move forward without tearing each other down. Many people sign up because they want to help. If you feel committee members are not doing the work as well as they can or should, please approach that with kindness. I haven’t met people who have signed up for a committee for a bad reason. There are constructive ways to offer feedback and ways to improve.