Topic on Talk:Code of Conduct/FAQ

It doesn't seem to be to answer frequently-asked questions. One of the most-discussed questions during the discussion of this Code of Conduct, was, essentially, "which types of outreach are encouraged and which are banned?" And more specifically, there was a question about which camp the Google Summer of Code falls into. This question was posed in the FAQ, but Quim removed it on the grounds that "nobody questions nowadays" that GSoC is allowed. (I do, so that's not literally true.) A related question was about which demographic groups are considered marginalized and underrepresented - that was kept, but its answer seems to have been made as mealy-mouthed as possible: basically, "not only will we not tell you, but we won't even tell you who gets to decide it".

(Quim also removed a question about defining "administrators and maintainers", though that seems fine because the "administrators and maintainers" phrase has been removed from the Code of Conduct. Though Quim's stated reason for removing it from the FAQ - "There is no confusion about who are administrators or maintainers" - makes it seem like perhaps that phrase still exists somewhere. Who knows.)

Of the five questions currently in the FAQ, four are about joining the committee, and specifically intended to relieve people's concerns about joining. (The other is the anodyne "marginalized and underrepresented" one.) Maybe it's best to just rename this page to something like "Joining the Code of Conduct Committee"? It doesn't serve the function of an FAQ in the literal sense.

Well, "frequently" doesn't mean the same as "most-discussed". One is repeating, the other sustaining. :)

I need your help Yaron. I've tried to understand this argument since you brought it up almost a year ago, even going so far as to try and reach out privately. Why do you continue to argue that outreach programs like GSoC would be in a volition of the CoC and why do you keep asking for clarification on what marginalized groups are?

I really don't understand why the Code of Conduct (and FAQ) should explain the very apparent and commonly understood benefit outreach programs have on creating a more diverse and inclusive community. That ship has sailed, so arguing against it is left for the obtuse - which, for the record, I don't believe you are. :)

I don't know what you mean by the difference between "repeating" and "sustaining"... at this point, I would think, figuring out which questions will be frequently asked is mostly conjecture, but clearly the outreach thing is something that was on various people's minds not long ago. The argument that GSoC violates the CoC is pretty simple: (1) the CoC makes it fairly clear that any form of targeted outreach is either forbidden or encouraged, depending on whether the targeted group is marginalized/underrepresented; (2) GSoC allows only college students; (3) college students are (presumably) neither marginalized nor underrepresented, so therefore (4) GSoC is forbidden under the CoC. During all the discussions we had about the wording, I don't remember hearing a direct refutation of this argument. Regardless of the GSoC thing, though, I think it's important for the Code of Conduct to be as clear as possible. There are special conditions around marginalized/underrepresented groups; so surely it's in everyone's interests to know what groups these are? Or at least how that gets decided?

I'm not responding to your other statement about diversity and inclusiveness because it doesn't seem directly relevant to this discussion - sorry.

Ha, sorry, my first sentence was meant to be tongue-in-cheek humor. Hence the smiley. Sorry that failed.

I added the questions about the Committee because as we reach out to potential candidates, these questions do come frequently.

I removed the question about GSoC because this is not a discriminatory program and I don't think anyone is considering to report their organizers or mentors. If someone still wants to keep discussing this point this is fine, but it doesn't need a mention in the FAQ.

The discussion about "which types of outreach are encouraged and which are banned?" doesn't need to be reflected in this FAQ until someone has actual intentions of organizing an outreach activity that might be considered discriminatory. I cannot come up with any Wikimedia/MediaWiki past activity that could be considered discriminatory.

The FAQ says "The Code of Conduct Committee will decide if a report received is related to groups fitting in these two categories" and I think this precise and accurate. Your edits could be interpreted as the CoC discussing and maintaining an own list of marginalized and otherwise underrepresented groups, which I am pretty sure that won't be the case.

Thanks for responding. GSoC obviously does discriminate, against people not in college. As for your last point - whether or not there's a written list kept (I don't think that's implied at all), surely the committee has to have some sort of unofficial list, or at least criteria, when determining whether any specific group is marginalized or underrepresented? How would the committee determine if, for instance, women are a marginalized/underrepresented group?

Hmm, my interpretation of this line is different.

From the CoC: "Discrimination (unless required by law), particularly against marginalized and otherwise underrepresented groups. Targeted outreach to such groups is allowed and encouraged."

I break that down as thus, and again, I speak for myself, not the committee or anyone else involved in the drafting of the CoC.

Discrimination - intentionally preventing a person or group from participating based up on characteristics such as age, gender, sex, religion - is unacceptable behavior under the Code of Conduct. 

I can't create a program within our technical community with the purpose of excluding a group, especially when that group is underrepresented. However, outreach to groups that are marginalized is welcome, as it is not discrimination. It's an attempt at equality. 

GSoC, which you keep bringing up, does not set out in its goals to omit participation from a particular group based upon characteristics they may embody. 

If the fictional Santo Marco MediaWiki user group hosted a program for local Santo Marcoians school children to attend, it's not discrimination if I'm not from Santo Marco or a child in school. Now, I could move to Santo Marco, but at the age of 36 I doubt I'd pass as a 5th grader. 

Now, the same could apply to your consideration of GSoC as being discriminatory. While I'm not in college, I could be. Anyone could be who meets the criteria for entering secondary education. 

Also, if it was so obvious that the GSoC program discriminates then we would find folks in outrage that Google - of all organizations - would be running a discriminatory program. They're not. I, uh, Googled it. :)

As for what is or isn't considered a marginalized group - that is left to the committee to discuss and decide. However, discussions such as the past one during the drafting phase and this one can help to inform that decision making process. Using a little bit of logic and research I would assume that folks on the committee would be able to do determine during the investigation of reports of violation of the Code of Conduct that distinction. If you think they can't - that's for another discussion outside the scope of the FAQ. 

At this point it feels like your question boils down to "Are the committee members smart enough to figure out if women are underrepresented or if a program is discriminatory?". Spoiler alert: women are underrepresented and marginalized. Discrimination is everywhere. They can figure it out. We have some whip-smart folks in our community who I wager will be a part of the committee. 

I think it's pretty clear to distinguish between a marginalized group and one that is not. Even if as we (technical spaces, but society as a whole) strive to make that list shorter and things more equal.

I'm a straight white dude. It's pretty much anyone who isn't like me that falls into the area of concern. :)

Our goals as a small sliver of the Wikimedia movement should be move the needle in participation from marginalized and underrepresented groups from the piss poor state it's in now to one where we have more diverse voices participating. One way of doing that? A Code of Conduct that prevents jerks from discriminating against folks.

You're a smart guy Yaron. I'm sorry if there's understanding here that escapes you. I don't have any idea how I can make it more clear. I'm honestly trying. Please assume good faith. I respect your work in the community and appreciate your participation as a colleague in these challenging conversations. 

Since we're straying a bit off of the discussion for the FAQ, might I suggest we carry this conversation somewhere else? If you'd like to continue, perhaps either of our Talk pages would be better suited? Happy to oblige if you agree.

You're indeed straying off this discussion - though I don't think I am. Maybe try to keep your comments here more focused?

I'm not sure you understand what "discrimination" means, given that you think a hypothetical program that limits people by both location of residence and age is not discriminatory. But I'd be curious if you (or Quim, or anyone else) could fashion a definition of "discrimination" under which the Google Summer of Code *wouldn't* apply.

If it's obvious which groups are marginalized and underrepresented and which aren't (and maybe it is), why not have the FAQ explicitly list them, to prevent confusion?

This is reminding me now of the discussion around the Code of Conduct itself - it was impossible to get a definition of anything from anyone. Interestingly, the FAQ reflects that: of the five questions it contains, four are geared toward recruitment, and the fifth basically says, "we're not going to answer that question".

@Yaron Koren I don't understand what specific problem you want to solve. Having a perfect list of marginalized or otherwise underrepresented groups (if that thing could exist) published beforehand would be useful for... what exactly?

> The argument that GSoC violates the CoC is pretty simple:

If someone thinks the GSoC org admins, mentors, or interns are violating the Code of Conduct, they can report them.

> How would the committee determine if, for instance, women are a marginalized/underrepresented group?

Considering that about half of the population are women and considering the very small percentage of women you can find in basically any area of the Wikimedia technical community, it is simple to deduce that women are clearly an underrepresented group here.

Aha! Finally, we have a definition for "underrepresented", about a year or so after the question was first asked: a group is underrepresented if there is a smaller percentage of it in the Wikimedia technical community than in the world. Can this be added to the FAQ?

Now, if we can get a definition of "marginalized", this will really have been productive.

Your response about "admins, mentors, or interns" was not relevant, since what's being discussed is the GSoC program itself.

The FAQ already links to English Wikipedia articles providing definitions.

My response about GSoC is as relevant as your comments about GSoC in the context of the CoC. If someone thinks that Wikimedia shouldn't be involved in GSoC because it violates this CoC, then they can report the case.

As said in my previous response, I still don't understand what specific problem you want to solve with this thread.

Right, I never understood the point of those Wikipedia links - are those the official definitions? If so, the FAQ should say something like "The official definitions of these two terms can be found on the English-language Wikipedia", instead of just cryptically linking to them. Though that would be odd, since the text of those pages can of course change at any time (not to mention that not everyone speaks English). Anyway, you did provide a clear definition for "underrepresented", which seems reasonable to me, so I added it to the FAQ. Hopefully you can similarly define "marginalized".

I think it's pretty clear what I'm trying to do, from my initial comment... I don't know what I can really add to that.

Actually, I guess I can add more. Having re-read your responses, now I understand the real question you were asking: "Having a perfect list of marginalized or otherwise underrepresented groups (if that thing could exist) published beforehand would be useful for... what exactly?"

I wasn't really asking about a list - I'd be happy with just definitions. But anyway, the way the Code of Conduct is written, it's fairly clear that any form of what's known as "targeted outreach" is either banned or encouraged - there's no middle ground. A high-stakes situation, I'd think you'd have to agree. So, I would think it's important for anyone planning to participate in targeted outreach to know which one it will be, before getting into it.

> A high-stakes situation, I'd think you'd have to agree.

I don't think it is a high-stakes situation because I don't see this being a real problem today for anyone having plans to organize a Wikimedia technical activity. Neither I see how this CoC would have invalidated any of the previous Wikimedia tech outreach activities. If you disagree, could you bring real examples, current or from the past?

If anyone is planning to organize an outreach activity and they are not sure whether it will conflict with the CoC, they can simply ask in the CoC Talk page.

Sure, I can give an example - the Google Summer of Code. It targets college students, a group that I'm guessing is neither underrepresented nor marginalized (whatever that word exactly means). I still have yet to hear a coherent explanation of why WMF participation in GSoC is allowed under this CoC, when a straightforward reading of the CoC would seem to indicate that it's now forbidden.

I don't see how asking on the talk page would help... doesn't it depend on who answers them? And how would that person or people know for sure?