Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Enforcement/Korean community/Survey

Translate this page

The Korean UCoC Enforcement pathways survey was launched on February 7th and officially closed on March 1, 23:59 PM (KST), it was conducted through google survey platform. And it was announced in the village pump, sitenotice, Korean Wikipedia community news, consultation page and asked in the user talk page of various active and new users.

118 responses were collected while the survey was open.

Note: Some people who have already completed the survey also joined other forms of consultation (such as on-wiki or private consultations), so please be aware of the redundancy on the data.

Demographics

Gender

If we do not count the response entrees that do not identify their gender (22 entrees), 74.0% are male, and 25.0% are female out of 96 entrees that identified their gender in the survey.

Home Wiki

Which wiki are you mostly active from?

106 (89.8%) Korean Wikipedia

6 (5.1%) English Wikipedia

3 (2.5%) Multilingual projects (Wikimedia Commons / Wikidata)

3 (2.5%) Other language projects

Rights/Experience

Registered or anonymous user: 89 (75.4%) contributing as registered users; 29 (24.6%) contributing as anonymous (IP) users.

Participation of Teenage group

ZEM is android application provided by SKT (cellular provider in South Korea), where many teen users join since Wikipedia is the only website that is not restricted while on restricted mode. This question was asked in order to distribute the entire survey by teenagers.

Out of 118 entrees, 21 people (17.8%) responded that they are registered wikipedia from the ZEM.

Past Experience

Have you ever experienced/witnessed one of the following unethical behaviours in the Wikimedia projects?

Experienced/Witnessed any type of Harassment (64 - 54.2%)
- Personal attack (39 - 33.1%)
- Personal information leakage (21 - 17.8%)
- Legal threats (17 - 14.4%)
- Physical threats (13 - 11.0%)
- Harassment (29 - 24.5)
- Sexual assault (8 - 6.8%)
- Other unethical behaviours (4 - 3.4%)
  - Dissemination of false facts (2)
  - Caricature of a deceased person (1)
  - Bad behaviours when user reverting the contribution (1)
  - Expressed biased opinion, working. (1)
I didn’t experienced any harassment or other unethical issues (54 - 45.8%)

Have you ever hesitated to contribute to Wikipedia for fear of personal attacks or harassment from other users?

Yes - 29(24.6%)
No - 89 (75.4%)

About current policy and enforcement pathways in Korean Projects

In this part, the facilitator's comment will be also include for better analysis. Most questions in this section were asked to answer in 1 to 5 scale. The number closer to 1 on the scale means a negative response, and a number closer to 5 means a positive response.

How much are you familiar with behavioural policies on Korean Wikipedia?: 17 (14.4%) - 1; 20 (16.9%) - 2; 37 (31.4%) - 3; 29 (24.6%) - 4; 15 (12.7%) - 5

Comment: ~68% of respondents said they understand some or are familiar with the current behavioural policies in Korean Wikipedia.

Do you think Korean Wikipedia has a sufficient amount of behavioural policy?: 14 (11.9%) - 1; 22 (18.6%) - 2; 41 (34.7%) - 3; 21 (17.8%) - 4; 20 (16.9%) - 5

Comment: In terms of quantity of policy, they seem to agree with the fact that they have some. But unsure about Quality.

Do you think Korean Wikipedia's behavioural policies are at par with the new UCoC?: 10 (9%) - 1; 11 (9.9%) - 2; 52 (46.8%) - 3; 23 (20.7%) - 4; 15 (13.5%) - 5

Comment: There are more ideas with the favour in this question, but ~47% said there should be adjustment since Korean Wikipedia’s policy is not clearly on par with UCoC.

Do you think Korean Sister projects have a sufficient amount of behavioural policy?

47 people responded that they are not active in Sister projects (or have no idea)

Out of rest, 71 participants:

19 (26.7%) - 1

11 (15.5%) - 2

21 (29.6%) - 3

11 (15.5%) - 4

9 (12.7%) - 5

Comment: Many said there aren’t enough behavioural policies are set in sister projects, with means UCo will benefit to deal with possible.

Do you think Korean Sister projects behavioural policies are at par with the new UCoC?

49 people responded that they are not active in Sister projects (or have no idea):Out of rest, 69 participants:

9 (13.0%) - 1

6 (8.7%) - 2

35 (50.7%) - 3

10 (14.5%) - 4

9 (13.0%) - 5

Comment: Many are unsure about the behaviour policies in sister projects are par with UCoC policy

What do you think about the reporting system in Korean Wikipedia, it is working well?: 24 (20.3%) - 1; 20 (16.9%) - 2; 35 (29.7%) - 3; 20 (16.9%) - 4; 19 (16.1%) - 5

Comment: For the user evaluation of performance and effectiveness of the current report system, Each person felt different parts of their experience, so I could see the parts evenly distributed.

Do you believe Korean Wikipedia is putting a quick and adequate restraint on users who show unethical behaviour?: 20 (16.9%) - 1; 26 (22%) - 2; 34 (28.8%) - 3; 20 (16.9%) - 4; 18 (15.3%) - 5

Comment: There were more negative responses about dealing in a quick and adequate way, however the responses are distributed evenly other than neutral.

Should the reporting system in Korean Wikipedia be improved?: 62 (52.5%) said yes, there should be improvements/changes needed.; 12 (10.2%) said no, the reporting system is perfect and no improvement is necessary.; 44 (37.3%) said I am not sure about what improvements need to be made.

Additional suggestion / comments regarding reporting system in kowiki community

(optional short answer) 39 responses collected:

Response process on current reporting system is too slow.
Maybe guide on the behavioural stuff.
Freedom of expression but their opinion must be guaranteed, however this may lead to infringe on the personality of users that should be kept universally. There should be enforcement against users having those behaviours.
The reporting system should be responding more quicker.
Not a problem with the system, seems like less administrators than we need.
There should be review for the policy 백:다른곳 (note: Currently deleted) in Korean Wikipedia.

Enforcement pathways of UCoC

How do we create better reporting pathways for targets of harassment?

In order to address the users that violate UCoC or other behavioural policies in Korean wikipedia, how we should improve the reporting system.
How should an admin take action against the users who violate the UCoC?
Especially for serious harassment, personal attacks, and threats of violence against contributors?

Majority people Commented:
- There should be private reporting pathways (such as email, KakaoTalk messenger) for the cases including serious harassment or threat.
- It is necessary to be able to take preemptive and immediate response to users who engage in personal attacks, legal threats, or other kinds of the legal attack
- The administrator is all on a volunteer basis. Therefore, sexual harassment, dissemination of personal information, threats, or defamation to the extent of crime should be intervened immediately by the Foundation.
- If there is a legal problem, then should cooperate with investigative agencies.

Other ideas:
- There should be separation of administrative requests by urgency, and try to take more speedy action for the urgent cases.
- Take an action as a UCoC stating,In the case of repeating acts such as harassment while avoiding the rules, it is better to deal with it after discussion with admins, bureaucrats, and the committee (if exists).
- The administrators (or whoever is enforcing UCoC) shall investigate detaily with the victims.
- Should look over the observer(third party users)’s comment, and what each party is saying, and make a compromise.
- Should listen to other’s opinions when the specific user does unethical behaviour.
- The current (and all should be invested in the public approach) leads to cases of hesitation.
- The name of the user who made the report and the name of the user who received the report are disclosed to the administrator, but do not appear elsewhere (block mail, block list, etc.)

Who, in your opinion, should handle UCoC enforcement

Administrator (sysop) - 63 (53.4%)

Bureaucrat - 35 (29.7%)

a new local committee - 46 (39.0%)

a new global committee - 52 (44.1%)

Everyone - 3 (2.5%)

Foundation - 1 (0.8%)

Unsure - 2 (1.7%)

Other comments

Committee should be responsible but the members should be changed periodically in order to prevent possible bias

Should a private UCoC violation reporting system be implemented in your community?: Yes - 77 (65.3%); No - 4 (3.3%); Neutral - 37 (31.4%)

If private report pathways exist, Which method should we use: Email to administrator - 61 (53%); Email reporting system using OTRS and mailing list - 46 (40%); Develop 1:1 chatbot system - 63 (54.8%); Other (7 comments, but mostly out of scope)

Comment: In the case of urgent matters, there were many opinions that there is a great need to allow methods such as urgently sending emails to managers rather than relying on the current system. Many also said Foundation can develop the new tools (chatbot which is indicated in option) for reporting in MediaWiki software

If private report pathways exist, which cases do we need to use this private method?

Serious harassment, and threats of violence against contributors - 83 (70.3%)

Problems caused by editing war between users - 39 (33.1%)

To protecting the project against the vandalism - 40 (33.9%)

Reporting abusing of multiple account - 39 (30.5%)

Other (15 comments)

Distributing the fake information (1)

When the bot is abused or causes serious problems (1)

Comment: Majority of respondents said the private report pathways should be only used when serious harassment, and threats of violence against contributors are made.

Should a UCoC violation reporting be handled anonymously (eg, would an anonymous complaint be accepted) in your community?: Yes - 70 (59.3%); No - 18 (15.3%); Neutral - 30 (25.4%)

How should we deal with situations outside of a wikimedia project, but within wikimedia movement?

66 responses collected

The host should kick the person who violates the UCoC and ban for further work. (1)
Cannot interpret too much the events occurring outside on-wiki.(4)
If proven, you must be proactive. (4)
If the case becomes beyond the community level (such as lawsuit), the community cannot interpret further. (1)
Only interpret If case is related to the Wikimedia movement. (2)

No clear consensus is made (There aren't any majority opinions in this question).

Additional Comments/Suggestions

42 responses collected

There should be a network to share and investigate the global case. The cross-wiki cases need the cooperation between each local wiki and global community (meta).
It would be better if the opinions (advocacy vs. dissent) were listed side-by-side and those that were stalkers were separated.
There should be prevention policy about stalking or other unaccepted behaviours that are happening outside of wiki.

Regarding Foundation's involvement

Should WMF take action for the case involving serious harassment, sexual assault, legal or murder threats?: Yes - 93 (78.8%); No - 10 (8.5%); Neutral - 15 (12.7%)

How should the Foundation help?

Quick and immediate action (global ban, temporary action) - 89 (75.4%)
Simplified reporting process - 47 (39.8%)
Communication in their native language, not English - 63 (53.4%)
Legal advice and protection strategies - 54 (45.8%)
Other (8 comments)
- Filtering system that prevents any legal threat (1)
- Since foundation implements UCoC, Foundation must demonstrate positive responses to the response in the process of implementing the UCoC. (1)

Additional comments about Foundation’s involvement on UCoC enforcement process: 43 comments collected

The foundation (or administrator) should be sent the official warning if unethical behaviours that violate the UCoC are identified. I don't prefer to rely on authority, but intervention is required to repress the actions of malicious users.
There should be DDoS attacks in the UCoC text.
Excessive intervention can be poisonous.
Providing legal advice to victims is essential.
The UCoC should be dealt flexibly by the local community (country) because each country has different cultural issues and laws. (Don’t apply the same enforcement strategies in all wiki and should be adjustable by local’s need.)
Have a mental health support channel for targets from harassment.

Findings from survey

This section is facilitator's findings from the survey responses.

Many users in Korean Wikis experienced/witnessed the unethical behaviour in the Wikimedia movement (Statistically ~54.2%).
~24.6% said they ever hesitated to contribute because of threats.
Respondents didn’t feel that the Korean Wikipedia's behaviour policies is insufficient, but in the process of cracking down on it. It is important to note that different evaluations are made for each person (Since in the question that directly asked the responding process, the responses are made almost evenly. (about 15~23% each, with ~28% said either not effective or not effective)
It is necessary to be able to take preemptive and immediate response during the UCoC enforcement process.
It’s most effective when both the administrator and committee enforce UCoC.
There was a majority argument that private reporting pathways when dealing with cases including serious harassment, and threats of violence against contributors.
Foundation should involve and take enforcement of UCoC in the serious case that including serious harassment, sexual assault, legal or murder threats. It is important to note two things regarding this:
- Administrators cannot handle every case that violates UCoC (only minor or middle-heavy cases can be dealt with in admin level)
- There should be quick and immediate action by Foundation, as well as able to communicate with their native language.