16 ms·

Open Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

113 points by happy-go-lucky 7y ago

mistrial9 7y ago
if this letter amounts to support of status-quo for Wikipedia-en editors, then "phooey" on that.
- Firerouge 7y ago
  It's basically the arbitration committee scorning the trust and safety committee of the wikimedia foundation for overstepping into what should of been a case handled by them and the community.
  - teddyh 7y ago
    I am reminded of when the “weboob” package was removed from Debian (itself a reasonable action)… by Debian’s Anti-Harassment Team, not by the Debian FTP masters or anyone who usually removes packages. EDIT: I was misinformed, as geofft correctly point out in a comment below.
    - geofft 7y ago
      That is untrue: https://bugs.debian.org/914179 https://bugs.debian.org/914179 Any member of the Debian community (even just a user) can file an RM bug against ftp.debian.org, if they provide justification. That is the standard procedure. The FTP masters perform the removal, but in the majority of cases someone else (the package's own maintainer, a member of the release team, a member of the "QA team" which is also everybody) files it, and says "request of maintainer"/"QA"/etc. It is clear from the linked bug that antiharassment requested the removal and ftpmaster performed it. That's normal procedure. And the text was clearer than usual that ftpmaster should make their own independent judgment about whether it was justified (even though they always can).
      - teddyh 7y ago
        I stand corrected; I only knew what I had read about it. Also, I now see that Wikipedia’s T&S committee had a plausible reason for not referring the matter of Fram back to ArbCom: It could be argued that ArbCom might be biased against Fram, considering Fram’s comments on record about ArbCom.
- ummonk 7y ago
  Both the Wikimedia Foundation and the status quo of rules lawyering Wikipedia-en editors are rather awful. Can't really pick sides here.
- bobcostas55 7y ago
  This is one of those fights where you kinda want both sides to lose.
gjsman-1000 7y ago
For more context: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/wikipedia-ban-editor-culture-war https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/wikiped...
- 0815test 7y ago
  Discussed earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315895
- iamnotacrook 7y ago
  "On June 10, the Wikimedia Foundation did something unprecedented in its decade and a half history: It banned a user from the English-language Wikipedia for a year." No they didn't. From editing it, perhaps; and using one specific persona. Anyone can read wikipedia without being logged in, and it's trivial to create a new account on any site.
  - anonymousab 7y ago
    > Anyone can read wikipedia without being logged in, and it's trivial to create a new account on any site That is likely against some part of an overly large ToS.
  - Grue3 7y ago
    That's nitpicking. When someone says they're banned from Twitter it means their account can't be used to make tweets, not that they cannot read Twitter while logged out, or that they can't make a new Twitter account.
    - alexandercrohde 7y ago
      Well, from where I sit, it's a huge difference in terms of how much I should care about it. I have a limited amount of outrage and try to ration it to the issues that are the largest societal problems.
      - 7y ago
gtirloni 7y ago
Hard data, please. What did he do specifically? EDIT: For the downvoters, my question is because I'm tired of being manipulated by parties on both sides of any issue only disclosing what interests them.
- finnthehuman 7y ago
  He rocked the boat. Wikimeida foundation thinks it's cute that their unpaid content worker bees have a governance system. But we just saw what always happens when an autonomous decision maker with delegated authority makes the wrong decision.
  - dang 7y ago
    Could you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? We're trying for something different from that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- DAlperin 7y ago
  He was a good editor. But my understanding was he was mean. The community did not have systems to handle the situation so the WMF stepped in. And ruled over the community.
  - kchamplewski 7y ago
    > The community did not have systems to handle the situation so the WMF stepped in. The community does have systems to handle such situations though (e.g. the arbitration committee which has produced this letter). Of course, these systems may or may not be adequate - I am not qualified to say, but it seems to me that the chief complaint here is that the WMF did not involve any community systems without having previously expressed concerns about them. This suggests that either the WMF does not consider the systems adequate, in which case the arbitration committee is quite right to request that the WMF communicate this to them, or the WMF has some genuinely top-secret reason to ban someone that even the arbitration committee cannot be trusted with (which for a matter as light as a 1-year ban due to community reports doesn't seem likely).
HarryHirsch 7y ago
He did the same thing as Linus, he didn't mince words when he showed the door to people who persistently wrote crap articles. It's the intersection of academic entitlement (students really believe that just showing up and making an effort should be rewarded with good grades, no matter how good the outcome is) and American discourse (no rude words, hurt feelings are more important than substance).
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  I don't think that your definition of American discourse is totally accurate- it's definitely true that happens, but not everywhere in the US. One of the things that has made me better has been people who were willing to tell me "please stop", "you seriously screwed up", and "good job"- but if you listen to the wrong people, you won't get anywhere. Fram seems like one of those people that's actually worth listening to, and that his criticism and praise have some merit.
- cc81 7y ago
  You can be strict and fair but still treat people with respect. Being an asshole is not something you have to be.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    That's the theory, but what do you do if a volunteer's efforts are simply not up to snuff or when his goals are at odds with the project's goals? They need to spend their time elsewhere, unfortunately some just won't take any hint whatsoever. Storytime! I'm teaching introductory science at a regional college somewhere in the Southern US. Admission standards are low, especially for the nursing school. Somehow there's a large number of students from a disadvantaged background who have been directed into nursing by family or their guidance counselor or whoever. This describes half of the kids in my class. Preparedness in math is a great problem, especially for kids from rural or urban ghettoes. Many students have no clue about basic algebra, some can't even do fractions. There is a prerequisite math course that kids must take before the science course, but it fails to fix these deficiencies. I demand that my students solve multiple-step word problems, simply because it's a needed skill that will come up in later courses and in their careers. Math and reading isn't my concern, teaching science is. Besides, medication errors are the third-leading cause of hospital deaths. Someone who can't read or calculate dosage has no business being anywhere near a patient. Without hyperbole, it's a public health issue! That's what I told my students, but they don't care. In their minds I am the obstacle between them and a lucrative career. I force them to continue in poverty. If someone has advice I'm glad to hear. It's an institutional problem that the institution comprehensively fails to address. Administration's main interest is tuition income and student satisfaction.
xref 7y ago
Fram (wiki mod in question) is apparently the Linus Torvalds of the old-guard Wikipedia community. “He’s a prolific genius!” vs “He’s a toxic asshole!” and much like the Linux community there have been no effective systems to deal with someone like that. It’s telling that the Wikipedia community’s response is “How do we deal with WMF” and not “How do we deal with this admin”
- unreal37 7y ago
  Yes, great analogy. Took quite a while for Linus to come to the realization that "I could be better".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- geofft 7y ago
  I am generally on the side of Linus being a toxic asshole, but, 1. I would consider it inappropriate for the Linux Foundation to remove Linus without the involvement of the community. They're there to be stewards of the project, not to run it, and while I have problems with Linus, I also have (different, unrelated, not directly comparable) problems with the corporate control of LF, and it would set a precedent that other decisions are in the hands of LF. And besides there's the practical problem that if Linus is still wanted by the community, banning one toxic asshole won't change the culture. If LF wants to advocate for the community to decide they no longer want Linus, that would be fine (and I'd honestly support it) and they should implement the community consensus if it emerges. (If they want to no longer pay Linus upwards of a half million dollars per year, that would certainly be within their rights, too.) 2. Along those lines it seems difficult to believe that Wikipedia's culture problem is a single dude. If we admit for the sake of argument that we do want WMF to ban assholes (which I can see the merits of), that's likely to translate to mass bans, which the existing community governance structures should at least be consulted in. (Even if one of the possible conclusions is "the existing community leadership are all asshole enablers and need to be stripped of power," make that decision after having the conversation.) 3. From reading around https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRAM it seems like he's one of the most vocal opponents to new features being pushed by WMF that the community seems to not be enthusiastic about. See the comment starting "In the absence of any explanation, the cynic in me guesses...."
johnchristopher 7y ago
My, my... That's some legalese thrown in there. What a contrast with the declaration of the independence of the cyberspace. Snark aside, it really looks ugly from the outside.
unreal37 7y ago
The problem when an extremely popular person (in some circles) needs to be held accountable to the rules. Like when OJ was on trial. Or Bill Cosby and Louis CK were found to be creeps. So this Fram gets a few warnings about his behavior crossing the line, but continues on. Who's going to take him on?
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  This comparison isn't appropriate.
  - unreal37 7y ago
    I'm not actually comparing his alleged acts to those of those people. It's an unfair comparison, and I didn't intend to imply there was equivalency there. Just the difficulty of enforcing rules on people who are extremely popular. Couldn't think of any better examples.
adolph 7y ago
Bye bye Wikipedia, it was nice while it lasted, looks like you got taken over by the totalitarians. [The Wikimedia Foundation’s (WMF) Trust and Safety team] have reiterated that they are not willing to reconsider the ban, nor will they turn the full evidence over to the community or ArbCom for review.
- nsajko 7y ago
  You are confusing (the English) Wikipedia with the Wikimedia Foundation, the corporation that owns all the Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects, like Wiktionary, Wikidata, Wikiversity, etc.
- mlurp 7y ago
  I guess I'm not surprised. Articles on contentious topics have always had people trying to control the narrative. As Wikipedia got more and more widely trusted/respected, you'd imagine that people would pay money to do it. I assume there have already been attempts at decentralized, more democratic versions of it?
  - nsajko 7y ago
    I am not sure what do you mean by "decentralized, more democratic versions of it", but one problem with that plan is that Google is going to put x.wikipedia.org in the first place in search results (where x is your country code).
  - 0815test 7y ago
    The wiki ecosystem is relatively easy to decentralize - just start more wikis! The Wikipedia naming scheme is well known, so it's trivial to match articles about the same subject; and their content is released under an open license. There's also a well-known "InterWiki" standard, making links inbetween different wikis easier.
  - txcwpalpha 7y ago
    Wikipedia certainly has its issues in regards to bias on many topics, and I can see the allure of decentralization, but I wonder if it's really the solution. It seems to me like it would just make things worse Instead of each side policing each other and helping keep bias to a minimum, it would likely result in multiple extremely biased "versions" of the truth, with each version treated as gospel by its respective fans while dismissing all others. Imagine two people arguing about the validity of climate change, with one of them citing ExxonPedia.org and another citing GreenPeacePedia.org. It would be a nightmare.
nsajko 7y ago
There are many issues with the WMF T&S team's actions. They completely bypass the community procedures in place, deal out arbitrary sanctions without any explanation or justification and simultaneously refuse to deal with real issues that the community(ies) really can not deal with. Quoting a Wikimedia steward (Rschen): "I know for Croatian [Wikipedia] we stewards point-blank asked T&S if they would do anything about it and they said no." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_2#Two_similar_bans_&_one_%22conduct_warning%22_on_Chinese_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_2#FYI:_Similar_incident_in_de.wp_some_months_ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t...
- the_duke 7y ago
  I don't have a skin in this game either way, but the discussion about the open letter [1] has multiple, mostly unrefuted and partially acknowledged posts claiming that the arbitration process was not working, lead to negative behavior remaining unmitigated and is in need of improvement. The open letter itself acknowledges this fact. If processes aren't working, sometimes a shakeup and ensuing drama is required to improve things. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Open_letter_to_the_WMF_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Com...
  - nsajko 7y ago
    Sure, the Arbitration Committee and the processes associated with it are not perfect. But is an unaccountable, invisible and all powerful judge, jury and executioner institution like the T&S a good or fair thing? If you look at the context apart form just the Fram case, you will see that T&S behaves very strangely.
rasengan0 7y ago
Sadly, it does not matter. People read, get riled, takes sides and form poles. Lots of wasted energy. Fram. Banning Fram. Local vs central cabal governance. WWF can play the bad cop and take the hit. There are more Frams, more ArbComs and more WWFs to take their place. Some day bots will rule, grafting in disparate knowledge graphs. Is the internet gonna stop using Wikipedia? If the humans are smart, best stick together and (start) build consensus and trust networks.
dreamcompiler 7y ago
One of the hard lessons I've learned over the course of my career is that no matter how "valuable" or "irreplaceable" an employee is, if they are toxic, you should fire them immediately. The damage done to a company by keeping toxic people always outweighs the damage done by firing them.
- nsajko 7y ago
  How to get rid of someone that gets in your way, or you just do not like that someone? Just label him "toxic"!
  - dreamcompiler 7y ago
    Everybody knows who the toxic people are in an organization. That's pretty much the definition of toxic. Conversely as the old saying goes, if you think everybody in the organization is an asshole, it's likely the real asshole is you.
jmull 7y ago
I see this from a high-level. There's a power-struggle going on where one body is taking an action another body feels they should have control or at least input into. That this power-struggle occurs and especially that it happens in public is healthy, IMO. But ArbCom should really be looking itself in the mirror right now. The fact is, under their watch Fram was free to be a huge asshole to contributors for some 15 years. ArbCom suggests that someone should have told them they needed to do something. But that seems like a very weak excuse for the senior conduct body. You are the ones who need to be setting and enforcing the rules that allow for contributions! IMO no organization should tolerate assholes, so they got the result right but clearly did not do it the right way. I think ArbCom needs to handle these cases, at least a decade quicker than in this case.
- nsajko 7y ago
  But there are indications of corruption within WMF, capriciousness of the T&S team, and no evidence against Fram was given.
  - jmull 7y ago
    I agree T&S did not handle this the right way. My main point is ArbCom should have already handled this, perhaps a decade ago. So they are broken. If they want a healthy Wikipedia their first priority should be fixing themselves. They should understand why a toxic asshole was running free for many years under their watch and how they can prevent it from happening again. Maybe they are doing this behind the scenes, but it's not clear to me they even understand they have a problem. (BTW, no one seems to be disputing that Fram is an asshole. Maybe I missed it, but if true, then there's no question that in a community-driven site, something needs to be done about it. Some people seem to want to believe that it could be simultaneously true that Fram could be a big asshole AND be a good editor. In the context of a community-driven site, those people are wrong. Driving off potentially valuable contributors is cardinal sin.)
    - nsajko 7y ago
      I am not that well acquainted with Fram, and the term asshole is not precise enough; but you really do need some well intentioned assholes if you want to run wiki-style projects. The problem is that wikis are free to participate to, but not everybody is well intentioned or capable of constructive and positive participation. Those people are more harmful than "assholes", and Fram used to take care of such people from what I gather. Edit: I did not down-vote you, nor would I do it if I could.
nsajko 7y ago
It might also be interesting to read the today's articles in Wikipedia's news magazine The Signpost. Did Fram harass other editors?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/Special_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/Discussion_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/News_and_notes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
jancsika 7y ago
Here's one of the accusations[1] that is posted publicly on Wikipedia: > A troll on an offsite forum posted a graphic written depiction of myself engaged in sexual activity with another editor. Fram repeatedly posted a link to this depiction on Wikipedia, even after it was revision deleted. If Fram did this then there should be a log viewable by a Wikipedia admin. There are apparently over 1,000 admins. At least one of them should be able to scroll back through Fram's activity, find the case cited, and report publicly that they can corroborate this anonymous accusation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/Special_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

if this letter amounts to support of status-quo for Wikipedia-en editors, then "phooey" on that.

Firerouge 7y ago
It's basically the arbitration committee scorning the trust and safety committee of the wikimedia foundation for overstepping into what should of been a case handled by them and the community.
- teddyh 7y ago
  I am reminded of when the “weboob” package was removed from Debian (itself a reasonable action)… by Debian’s Anti-Harassment Team, not by the Debian FTP masters or anyone who usually removes packages. EDIT: I was misinformed, as geofft correctly point out in a comment below.
  - geofft 7y ago
    That is untrue: https://bugs.debian.org/914179 https://bugs.debian.org/914179 Any member of the Debian community (even just a user) can file an RM bug against ftp.debian.org, if they provide justification. That is the standard procedure. The FTP masters perform the removal, but in the majority of cases someone else (the package's own maintainer, a member of the release team, a member of the "QA team" which is also everybody) files it, and says "request of maintainer"/"QA"/etc. It is clear from the linked bug that antiharassment requested the removal and ftpmaster performed it. That's normal procedure. And the text was clearer than usual that ftpmaster should make their own independent judgment about whether it was justified (even though they always can).
    - teddyh 7y ago
      I stand corrected; I only knew what I had read about it. Also, I now see that Wikipedia’s T&S committee had a plausible reason for not referring the matter of Fram back to ArbCom: It could be argued that ArbCom might be biased against Fram, considering Fram’s comments on record about ArbCom.
ummonk 7y ago
Both the Wikimedia Foundation and the status quo of rules lawyering Wikipedia-en editors are rather awful. Can't really pick sides here.
bobcostas55 7y ago
This is one of those fights where you kinda want both sides to lose.

For more context: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/wikipedia-ban-editor-culture-war https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/wikiped...

0815test 7y ago
Discussed earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315895
iamnotacrook 7y ago
"On June 10, the Wikimedia Foundation did something unprecedented in its decade and a half history: It banned a user from the English-language Wikipedia for a year." No they didn't. From editing it, perhaps; and using one specific persona. Anyone can read wikipedia without being logged in, and it's trivial to create a new account on any site.
- anonymousab 7y ago
  > Anyone can read wikipedia without being logged in, and it's trivial to create a new account on any site That is likely against some part of an overly large ToS.
- Grue3 7y ago
  That's nitpicking. When someone says they're banned from Twitter it means their account can't be used to make tweets, not that they cannot read Twitter while logged out, or that they can't make a new Twitter account.
  - alexandercrohde 7y ago
    Well, from where I sit, it's a huge difference in terms of how much I should care about it. I have a limited amount of outrage and try to ration it to the issues that are the largest societal problems.
    - 7y ago

gtirloni 7y ago

Hard data, please. What did he do specifically? EDIT: For the downvoters, my question is because I'm tired of being manipulated by parties on both sides of any issue only disclosing what interests them.

finnthehuman 7y ago
He rocked the boat. Wikimeida foundation thinks it's cute that their unpaid content worker bees have a governance system. But we just saw what always happens when an autonomous decision maker with delegated authority makes the wrong decision.
- dang 7y ago
  Could you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? We're trying for something different from that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
DAlperin 7y ago
He was a good editor. But my understanding was he was mean. The community did not have systems to handle the situation so the WMF stepped in. And ruled over the community.
- kchamplewski 7y ago
  > The community did not have systems to handle the situation so the WMF stepped in. The community does have systems to handle such situations though (e.g. the arbitration committee which has produced this letter). Of course, these systems may or may not be adequate - I am not qualified to say, but it seems to me that the chief complaint here is that the WMF did not involve any community systems without having previously expressed concerns about them. This suggests that either the WMF does not consider the systems adequate, in which case the arbitration committee is quite right to request that the WMF communicate this to them, or the WMF has some genuinely top-secret reason to ban someone that even the arbitration committee cannot be trusted with (which for a matter as light as a 1-year ban due to community reports doesn't seem likely).

HarryHirsch 7y ago

He did the same thing as Linus, he didn't mince words when he showed the door to people who persistently wrote crap articles. It's the intersection of academic entitlement (students really believe that just showing up and making an effort should be rewarded with good grades, no matter how good the outcome is) and American discourse (no rude words, hurt feelings are more important than substance).

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
I don't think that your definition of American discourse is totally accurate- it's definitely true that happens, but not everywhere in the US. One of the things that has made me better has been people who were willing to tell me "please stop", "you seriously screwed up", and "good job"- but if you listen to the wrong people, you won't get anywhere. Fram seems like one of those people that's actually worth listening to, and that his criticism and praise have some merit.
cc81 7y ago
You can be strict and fair but still treat people with respect. Being an asshole is not something you have to be.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  That's the theory, but what do you do if a volunteer's efforts are simply not up to snuff or when his goals are at odds with the project's goals? They need to spend their time elsewhere, unfortunately some just won't take any hint whatsoever. Storytime! I'm teaching introductory science at a regional college somewhere in the Southern US. Admission standards are low, especially for the nursing school. Somehow there's a large number of students from a disadvantaged background who have been directed into nursing by family or their guidance counselor or whoever. This describes half of the kids in my class. Preparedness in math is a great problem, especially for kids from rural or urban ghettoes. Many students have no clue about basic algebra, some can't even do fractions. There is a prerequisite math course that kids must take before the science course, but it fails to fix these deficiencies. I demand that my students solve multiple-step word problems, simply because it's a needed skill that will come up in later courses and in their careers. Math and reading isn't my concern, teaching science is. Besides, medication errors are the third-leading cause of hospital deaths. Someone who can't read or calculate dosage has no business being anywhere near a patient. Without hyperbole, it's a public health issue! That's what I told my students, but they don't care. In their minds I am the obstacle between them and a lucrative career. I force them to continue in poverty. If someone has advice I'm glad to hear. It's an institutional problem that the institution comprehensively fails to address. Administration's main interest is tuition income and student satisfaction.

xref 7y ago

Fram (wiki mod in question) is apparently the Linus Torvalds of the old-guard Wikipedia community. “He’s a prolific genius!” vs “He’s a toxic asshole!” and much like the Linux community there have been no effective systems to deal with someone like that. It’s telling that the Wikipedia community’s response is “How do we deal with WMF” and not “How do we deal with this admin”

unreal37 7y ago
Yes, great analogy. Took quite a while for Linus to come to the realization that "I could be better".
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
geofft 7y ago
I am generally on the side of Linus being a toxic asshole, but, 1. I would consider it inappropriate for the Linux Foundation to remove Linus without the involvement of the community. They're there to be stewards of the project, not to run it, and while I have problems with Linus, I also have (different, unrelated, not directly comparable) problems with the corporate control of LF, and it would set a precedent that other decisions are in the hands of LF. And besides there's the practical problem that if Linus is still wanted by the community, banning one toxic asshole won't change the culture. If LF wants to advocate for the community to decide they no longer want Linus, that would be fine (and I'd honestly support it) and they should implement the community consensus if it emerges. (If they want to no longer pay Linus upwards of a half million dollars per year, that would certainly be within their rights, too.) 2. Along those lines it seems difficult to believe that Wikipedia's culture problem is a single dude. If we admit for the sake of argument that we do want WMF to ban assholes (which I can see the merits of), that's likely to translate to mass bans, which the existing community governance structures should at least be consulted in. (Even if one of the possible conclusions is "the existing community leadership are all asshole enablers and need to be stripped of power," make that decision after having the conversation.) 3. From reading around https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRAM it seems like he's one of the most vocal opponents to new features being pushed by WMF that the community seems to not be enthusiastic about. See the comment starting "In the absence of any explanation, the cynic in me guesses...."

johnchristopher 7y ago

My, my... That's some legalese thrown in there. What a contrast with the declaration of the independence of the cyberspace. Snark aside, it really looks ugly from the outside.

unreal37 7y ago

The problem when an extremely popular person (in some circles) needs to be held accountable to the rules. Like when OJ was on trial. Or Bill Cosby and Louis CK were found to be creeps. So this Fram gets a few warnings about his behavior crossing the line, but continues on. Who's going to take him on?

raxxorrax 7y ago
This comparison isn't appropriate.
- unreal37 7y ago
  I'm not actually comparing his alleged acts to those of those people. It's an unfair comparison, and I didn't intend to imply there was equivalency there. Just the difficulty of enforcing rules on people who are extremely popular. Couldn't think of any better examples.

adolph 7y ago

Bye bye Wikipedia, it was nice while it lasted, looks like you got taken over by the totalitarians. [The Wikimedia Foundation’s (WMF) Trust and Safety team] have reiterated that they are not willing to reconsider the ban, nor will they turn the full evidence over to the community or ArbCom for review.

nsajko 7y ago
You are confusing (the English) Wikipedia with the Wikimedia Foundation, the corporation that owns all the Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects, like Wiktionary, Wikidata, Wikiversity, etc.
mlurp 7y ago
I guess I'm not surprised. Articles on contentious topics have always had people trying to control the narrative. As Wikipedia got more and more widely trusted/respected, you'd imagine that people would pay money to do it. I assume there have already been attempts at decentralized, more democratic versions of it?
- nsajko 7y ago
  I am not sure what do you mean by "decentralized, more democratic versions of it", but one problem with that plan is that Google is going to put x.wikipedia.org in the first place in search results (where x is your country code).
- 0815test 7y ago
  The wiki ecosystem is relatively easy to decentralize - just start more wikis! The Wikipedia naming scheme is well known, so it's trivial to match articles about the same subject; and their content is released under an open license. There's also a well-known "InterWiki" standard, making links inbetween different wikis easier.
- txcwpalpha 7y ago
  Wikipedia certainly has its issues in regards to bias on many topics, and I can see the allure of decentralization, but I wonder if it's really the solution. It seems to me like it would just make things worse Instead of each side policing each other and helping keep bias to a minimum, it would likely result in multiple extremely biased "versions" of the truth, with each version treated as gospel by its respective fans while dismissing all others. Imagine two people arguing about the validity of climate change, with one of them citing ExxonPedia.org and another citing GreenPeacePedia.org. It would be a nightmare.

nsajko 7y ago

There are many issues with the WMF T&S team's actions. They completely bypass the community procedures in place, deal out arbitrary sanctions without any explanation or justification and simultaneously refuse to deal with real issues that the community(ies) really can not deal with. Quoting a Wikimedia steward (Rschen): "I know for Croatian [Wikipedia] we stewards point-blank asked T&S if they would do anything about it and they said no." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_2#Two_similar_bans_&_one_%22conduct_warning%22_on_Chinese_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_2#FYI:_Similar_incident_in_de.wp_some_months_ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t...

the_duke 7y ago
I don't have a skin in this game either way, but the discussion about the open letter [1] has multiple, mostly unrefuted and partially acknowledged posts claiming that the arbitration process was not working, lead to negative behavior remaining unmitigated and is in need of improvement. The open letter itself acknowledges this fact. If processes aren't working, sometimes a shakeup and ensuing drama is required to improve things. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Open_letter_to_the_WMF_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Com...
- nsajko 7y ago
  Sure, the Arbitration Committee and the processes associated with it are not perfect. But is an unaccountable, invisible and all powerful judge, jury and executioner institution like the T&S a good or fair thing? If you look at the context apart form just the Fram case, you will see that T&S behaves very strangely.

rasengan0 7y ago

Sadly, it does not matter. People read, get riled, takes sides and form poles. Lots of wasted energy. Fram. Banning Fram. Local vs central cabal governance. WWF can play the bad cop and take the hit. There are more Frams, more ArbComs and more WWFs to take their place. Some day bots will rule, grafting in disparate knowledge graphs. Is the internet gonna stop using Wikipedia? If the humans are smart, best stick together and (start) build consensus and trust networks.

dreamcompiler 7y ago

One of the hard lessons I've learned over the course of my career is that no matter how "valuable" or "irreplaceable" an employee is, if they are toxic, you should fire them immediately. The damage done to a company by keeping toxic people always outweighs the damage done by firing them.

nsajko 7y ago
How to get rid of someone that gets in your way, or you just do not like that someone? Just label him "toxic"!
- dreamcompiler 7y ago
  Everybody knows who the toxic people are in an organization. That's pretty much the definition of toxic. Conversely as the old saying goes, if you think everybody in the organization is an asshole, it's likely the real asshole is you.

jmull 7y ago

I see this from a high-level. There's a power-struggle going on where one body is taking an action another body feels they should have control or at least input into. That this power-struggle occurs and especially that it happens in public is healthy, IMO. But ArbCom should really be looking itself in the mirror right now. The fact is, under their watch Fram was free to be a huge asshole to contributors for some 15 years. ArbCom suggests that someone should have told them they needed to do something. But that seems like a very weak excuse for the senior conduct body. You are the ones who need to be setting and enforcing the rules that allow for contributions! IMO no organization should tolerate assholes, so they got the result right but clearly did not do it the right way. I think ArbCom needs to handle these cases, at least a decade quicker than in this case.

nsajko 7y ago
But there are indications of corruption within WMF, capriciousness of the T&S team, and no evidence against Fram was given.
- jmull 7y ago
  I agree T&S did not handle this the right way. My main point is ArbCom should have already handled this, perhaps a decade ago. So they are broken. If they want a healthy Wikipedia their first priority should be fixing themselves. They should understand why a toxic asshole was running free for many years under their watch and how they can prevent it from happening again. Maybe they are doing this behind the scenes, but it's not clear to me they even understand they have a problem. (BTW, no one seems to be disputing that Fram is an asshole. Maybe I missed it, but if true, then there's no question that in a community-driven site, something needs to be done about it. Some people seem to want to believe that it could be simultaneously true that Fram could be a big asshole AND be a good editor. In the context of a community-driven site, those people are wrong. Driving off potentially valuable contributors is cardinal sin.)
  - nsajko 7y ago
    I am not that well acquainted with Fram, and the term asshole is not precise enough; but you really do need some well intentioned assholes if you want to run wiki-style projects. The problem is that wikis are free to participate to, but not everybody is well intentioned or capable of constructive and positive participation. Those people are more harmful than "assholes", and Fram used to take care of such people from what I gather. Edit: I did not down-vote you, nor would I do it if I could.

nsajko 7y ago

It might also be interesting to read the today's articles in Wikipedia's news magazine The Signpost. Did Fram harass other editors?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/Special_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/Discussion_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/News_and_notes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

jancsika 7y ago

Here's one of the accusations[1] that is posted publicly on Wikipedia: > A troll on an offsite forum posted a graphic written depiction of myself engaged in sexual activity with another editor. Fram repeatedly posted a link to this depiction on Wikipedia, even after it was revision deleted. If Fram did this then there should be a log viewable by a Wikipedia admin. There are apparently over 1,000 admins. At least one of them should be able to scroll back through Fram's activity, find the case cited, and report publicly that they can corroborate this anonymous accusation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/Special_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]