维基百科:2021年基金會針對中文維基百科的行動/維基媒體基金會聲明
此頁面彙整维基媒体基金会(Wikimedia Foundation,WMF)相關方面對本行動之相關聲明。 以下內容僅為作者之意見,不代表中文維基百科社群立場。 |
維基媒體基金會聲明
[编辑]在基金會開始行動的同時,維基媒體基金會法務部門屬下社群穩定及發展組的副主席瑪姬·丹尼斯(Maggie Dennis,即User:Mdennis (WMF))在元維基以及維基媒體郵件列表(Wikimedia-l)中發表有關一系列基金會行動的聲明,中文翻譯如下(內容複製自meta:Office actions/September 2021 statement/zh):
“ | 各位好,
我是維基媒體基金會法務部門的副總瑪姬·丹尼斯(Maggie Dennis),目前專門負責社群穩定及發展(Community Resilience & Sustainability)。[1]此信是為了要向大家說明為了保護全球社群,維基媒體基金會採取的一系列行動。 在此先向各位致歉——這封信內容非常長,且部分內容較為含糊。本信所述之大量議題相當複雜,我會儘量簡單總結其中對大家來說可能較不熟悉的資訊。在條件允許的情況下,我會儘量回覆相關問題,在數個星期之後我們的部門將會舉辦公聽會,到時我們可以更深入的討論本案相關議題。具體時間和詳細訊息會於跟工作人員協調好之後,盡快公告於Wikimedia-L和元維基。 也許您們之中許多人已經注意到,最近維基媒體基金會修改了保密協議(Non-disclosure agreements,NDA)政策。在元維基上已經有針對這些政策改變的討論,我不會在此信中複述相關討論內容。[2]簡而言之,基于潜在威脅的可信資訊,維基媒體基金會改變了個人接受保密協議的相關方針。这些安全威脅是有关于對維基媒體的滲透(infiltration)的資訊,包括对能够接触個人身份資訊以及当選的有影響力人物的职务的威脅。由于担心可能触发我们被警告的相關風險,我們無法預告我們此次的行動——即便是對我們所信任的社群成員(如監管員等)我們也不得不保密。我們立即限制了可能受影響的人士對此類工具的使用權限,並正在與相關用戶積極溝通,以核實他們是否確切受到危险。 我想要在此強調我們無意指责因此政策改变而權限受到限制之用戶有任何不良企圖。上述的渗透有多種渠道。我們既发现有用戶為了取得相關權力來刻意试图融入社群——然而他們的最終目的與維基媒體基金會開放知識之目標相左。同時我們也注意到部分受信任的社群成員,可能已成為外部團體利用和伤害的危险目標。这项政策主要為了解決后者,減少相關成員被招募或脅迫的可能性。除了这项政策改变中被除權的用戶能获得的個人資訊可能被洩露之外,我們相信这些用户中的部分也可能面臨危险。 本日,維基媒體基金會已经推出第二阶段的方案著手處理關於滲透的顧慮。我們在兩大受到影響的轄區之一內採取行動。在深入調查未獲認可的組織「中國大陸維基人(用戶組)」(Wikimedians of Mainland China,以下簡稱WMC)部分成員之相關行為後,我們決定全域禁制7位用戶,並將12位管理人員除權。[3]同時,我們向部分編輯者告知了拉票以及人肉搜索的相關政策,要求他們改变行為。 通常來說,維基媒體基金會不會對於自身之行動做過多的解釋,但此次破例是因为此次受影響範圍之大前所未見。為了保護在特定國家,及未受認可之用戶組的用戶之隱私及安全,我們無法透露過多訊息。我承认這些行動实属激進,然而此決議并非轻易。我們並不想要打擊及摧毀那些積極為開放知識奮鬥的诚信的包含WMC成員的中國編輯者的努力。我們不希望他們擔憂他們的貢獻會不受歡迎。可是,我們也不能在明知他們的安全可能遭受威脅的前提下,放任他們暴露在危險之中,而不採取任何保護措施。 在此之前,我們已經限制了對中國大陸地區用戶的個人資訊存取,我們知悉到上述的威脅存在於我們的專案之中。我們了解到已有用戶因此受到人身傷害。在確認案件真實性後,我們不得不立即採取相應措施。 在我的維基生涯裡面,此次的事件是一場挑戰,同時是一場勝利——維基百科已從一個受怀疑的非主流網站變成了全球高度信任普遍仰仗的網路百科。我在2007年第一次編輯專案時,就覺得維基媒體有成為世界最偉大的成就之潛力:大众的知识唾手可得。這是全體編輯者偉大的善舉。但是我在我开始編輯之后很快地意識到在如何呈现資訊上的角力之激烈,且有人利用该争端來達成其目的。在此,我並不是要說我有先见之明——我相信有許多維基成員在我之前早就意識到了相應的風險。我相信當今天的維基媒體專案備受信任,而外部勢力控制維基媒體資訊對他們能帶來前所未有的好處的时候,我們面臨的風險之大也是前所未有的。 「掌控」社群的威脅是實質存在的。數年來,維基媒體基金會一直知道克羅埃西亞語維基百科(Croatian Wikipedia)有面臨相關的挑戰——當中的相關檔案可以追溯至近十年前。維基媒體基金會近期設置了打擊虛假訊息團隊,他們在評估相關風險、尋找適當的方式、並已聘僱外部研究人員來審查專案的相關資料,以幫助我們更好地理解在面臨相似情況時可以使用怎樣的解決方案,以及該情境的起因[4]。最近,我們也成立了人權團隊,專門處理这些因有组织的控制訊息的尝试而造成的緊急人權威脅。我們今天所處理的案件展示了作為一個全球媒體活動,我們多么需要積極地處理面對的威脅,既要保证任何人在任何地方都可以编辑,又要保證这些人免受想让他们噤声的人的伤害。 關於除權,我們希望可以於可見的未來跟國際中文社群作近一步的溝通,探討我們對於選舉制度的計劃,以避免相關的維基媒體基金會專案被不合理的控制,並確保人们可以感觉安全并确实安全地編輯維基百科。我們需要確保我們的社群可以舉辦公正的選舉——沒有拉票或欺詐的行為。同時,我們希望對於選舉制度的改變可以幫助我們恢復(中文維基百科之)使用者查核員(CheckUser)權限。 在本信的結尾,我想要对你们当中被驚擾到人被表達我最真摯的歉意。这些人无疑包括那些擔心個人資訊是否已被洩漏的(我們並不認為有這樣的問題。我們已經及時採取行動避免了此事。)以及那些擔心更多此類的維基媒體基金會行動可能影響他們正常編輯和他们的社区的用戶(我們認為我們目前的行動已經在中短期遏止了相關的風險)。我對於受到相關威脅的社群表示抱歉。維基媒體基金會將繼續加強建設,以支持所有需要我們支持的社群,我們也仍然在學習如何能做得更好。同時,我們將繼續改进我們在这两方面的認知:我们在人權領域的影响以及我們解决相關挑戰的能力。您們值得有更好的服務——我們無法馬上解決所有的問題,但我們將积极努力专注地提升改進。 在此,我想要對在全球活躍貢獻的为五洲四海的读者服务的四千多名中文維基人表達歉意和遗憾。[5][6]我向你們保證,我們將會做得更好。您們向在世界各地的中文維基讀者分享知識是非常有意義的善舉——我們保證會持續支持您們的付出,為您們提供所需工具,使您們在一个安全、有效的环境心想事成。 在此重申,我會在法務團隊及其他相關團隊的幫助下,盡力回答你們的問題。我們會在元維基上設立一個專頁,以討論此系列的行動,並於幾週之後,我會主持公聽會,讓我們能更深入的討論本案相關議題。 致以最誠摯的問候, Maggie Dennis (WMF)(留言) 2021年9月13日 (一) 16:13 (UTC) 瑪姬
|
” |
“ |
Hello everyone, I’m Maggie Dennis, the Wikimedia Foundation’s Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability.[1] I’m reaching out to you today to talk about a series of actions the Foundation has recently taken to protect communities across the globe. I apologize in advance for the length and the ambiguity in certain areas. These are complicated issues, and I will try to summarize a lot of what may be unfamiliar information to some of you succinctly. I will answer questions to the best of my ability within safety parameters, and I will be hosting an office hour in a few weeks where I can discuss these issues in more depth. We’re currently getting that set up in regards to availability of support staff and will announce it on Wikimedia-L and Meta as soon as that information is prepared. Many of you are already aware of recent changes that the Foundation has made to its NDA policy. These changes have been discussed on Meta, and I won’t reiterate all of our disclosures there,[2] but I will briefly summarize that due to credible information of threat, the Foundation has modified its approach to accepting “non-disclosure agreements” from individuals. The security risk relates to information about infiltration of Wikimedia systems, including positions with access to personally identifiable information and elected bodies of influence. We could not pre-announce this action, even to our most trusted community partner groups (like the stewards), without fear of triggering the risk to which we’d been alerted. We restricted access to these tools immediately in the jurisdictions of concern, while working with impacted users to determine if the risk applied to them. I want to pause to emphasize that we do not mean to accuse any specific individual whose access was restricted by that policy change of bad intent. Infiltration can occur through multiple mechanisms. What we have seen in our own movement includes not only people deliberately seeking to ingratiate themselves with their communities in order to obtain access and advance an agenda contrary to open knowledge goals, but also individuals who have become vulnerable to exploitation and harm by external groups because they are already trusted insiders. This policy primarily served to address the latter risk, to reduce the likelihood of recruitment or (worse) extortion. We believe that some of the individuals impacted by this policy change were also themselves in danger, not only the people whose personal information they could have been forced to access. Today, the Foundation has rolled out a second phase of addressing infiltration concerns, which has resulted in sweeping actions in one of the two currently affected jurisdictions. We have banned seven users and desysopped a further 12 as a result of long and deep investigations into activities around some members of the unrecognized group Wikimedians of Mainland China.[3] We have also reached out to a number of other editors with explanations around canvassing guidelines and doxing policies and requests to modify their behaviors. When it comes to office actions, the Wikimedia Foundation typically defaults to little public communication, but this case is unprecedented in scope and nature. While there remain limits to what we can reveal in order to protect the safety and privacy of users in that country and in that unrecognized group, I want to acknowledge that this action is a radical one and that this decision was not easily made. We struggled with not wanting to discourage and destroy the efforts of good faith users in China who have worked so hard to fight for free and open knowledge, including some of those involved in this group. We do not want them to fear that their contributions are unwelcome. We also could not risk exposing them to danger by doing nothing to protect them after we became aware of credible threats to their safety. While some time ago we limited the exposure of personal information to users in mainland China, we know that there has been the kind of infiltration we describe above in the project. And we know that some users have been physically harmed as a result. With this confirmed, we have no choice but to act swiftly and appropriately in response. I take it as both a triumph and a challenge that in the years of my own involvement I have seen Wikimedia go from a suspect non-mainstream website to a highly trusted and widely relied upon source across the world. When I first started editing the projects in about 2007, I already believed Wikimedia had the capacity to be one of the greatest achievements of the world — collective knowledge, at your fingertips. What an amazing gesture of goodwill on the part of all of its many editors. It didn’t take me long after I started editing to realize how entrenched the battles could be over how to present information and how that can be exploited to achieve specific ends. I’m not trying to suggest that I was astonishingly prescient; I think there were many who realized that risk long before I stumbled naively on the scene. I do think that the risk is greater than ever now, when Wikimedia projects are widely trusted, and when the stakes are so high for organized efforts to control the information they share. Community “capture” is a real and present threat. For years, the movement has been widely aware of challenges in the Croatian Wikipedia, with documentation going back nearly a decade. The Foundation recently set up a disinformation team, which is still finding its footing and assessing the problem, but which began by contracting an external researcher to review that project and the challenges and help us understand potential causes and solutions for such situations.[4] We have also recently staffed a human rights team to deal with urgent threats to the human rights of communities across the group as a result of such organized efforts to control information. The situation we are dealing with today has shown me how much we need as a movement to grapple with the hard questions of how we remain open to editing by anyone, anywhere, while ensuring that individuals who take us up on that offer are not harmed by those who want to silence them. With respect to the desysopping, we hope to connect with the international Chinese language community in the near future to talk about approaches to elections that avoid the risk of project capture and ensure that people are and feel safe contributing to the Chinese language Wikipedia. We need to make sure that the community can hold fair elections, without canvassing or fraud. We hope that helping to establish such a fair approach to elections will allow us to reinstate CheckUser rights in time. I want to close this message by noting that I am personally deeply sorry to those of you for whom this will be a shock. This will undoubtedly include those who wonder if they should fear that their personal information has been exposed (we do not believe so; we believe we acted in time to prevent that) and also those who fear that further such bold action is in the works which may disrupt them and their work and their communities (at this point, with this action, we believe the identified risks have been contained in the short to medium term). I am also truly sorry to those communities who have been uneasy in the shadow of such threats for some time. The Foundation continues to build our capacity to support every community that wants or needs its support - and we are still learning how to do so well when we do. One of the key areas we seek improvement is in our ability to understand our human rights impact and in our ability to address those challenges. You have not had the service you’ve deserved. We can’t fix things immediately, but we are working to improve, actively, intentionally, and with focus. To the 4,000 active Chinese language Wikimedians distributed across the world and serving readers in multiple continents,[5][6] I would like to communicate my sorrow and regret. I want to assure you that we will do better. The work you do in sharing knowledge to Chinese readers everywhere has great meaning, and we are committed to supporting you in doing this work into the future, with the tools you need to succeed in a safe, secure, and productive environment. Again, I will answer what questions I can, also relying on the support of others in Legal and perhaps beyond. We’re setting up a page on Meta to talk, and I will be hosting an office hour in coming weeks. Best regards, Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Maggie
|
” |
第一次問答
[编辑]瑪姬·丹尼斯在2021年9月14日 (二) 20:16 (UTC)於元維基聲明頁的討論頁中發表了一個問答,回應了六條問題。以下採用User:卡達在2021年9月15日 (三) 04:12 (UTC)在互助客棧消息區發佈(固定版本)的翻譯版本,並有少量修訂。
“ |
|
” |
“ |
|
” |
第二次問答
[编辑]瑪姬·丹尼斯在2021年9月15日 (三) 18:48 (UTC)於元維基聲明頁的討論頁中發表了第二次問答,回應了五條問題。以下採用User:Antigng在2021年9月16日 (四) 16:26 (UTC)在基金會行動本地主討論區發佈(固定版本)的翻譯版本。
“ |
|
” |
“ |
|
” |
在基金會行動中,User:玄客為該輪行動中被全域鎖定的用戶之一。經報告後,基金會於2021年9月16日 (四) 21:47 (UTC)在元維基的原聲明頁發佈一則有關User:玄客的公開聲明,表示經調查後發現為錯誤封禁並致歉。該用戶帳號於2021年9月17日 (五) 05:12 (UTC)解除鎖定(日誌:m:43359576)。
“ | 基於信任與安全團隊透過ca@頻道所得的最新資訊,我們重新審視了一個因此案而被鎖定的帳號。該帳號屬於用戶玄客。我們經收到的資訊和證據經調查人員查證後,確認玄客並非如原先判斷為(被全域禁制用戶)Walter Grassroot的傀儡帳號。因此,玄客的帳號已被完全恢復。
我們感謝所有透過ca@頻道發送額外資訊和證據以反證我們近期的基金會行動的用戶。這是一個非常重要的過程,而基金會會審視每一個用戶提供的電郵和文件。 我們在此向用戶玄客致以深切歉意,同時在此呼籲用戶透過ca@頻道向我們提供更多資訊。 |
” |
“ |
Upon recent information provided through our ca@ channel within Trust and Safety, we have reassessed one account locked as a result of this investigation. This account belongs to user 玄客. The information and supporting evidence received and authenticated by our investigators ascertains that user 玄客 is not, as originally identified, a sock of Walter Grassroot. As a result of this, user 玄客's account has been restored to full capacity. We appreciate everyone who is using ca@ channel to send us additional information and evidence that substantiates or refutes the recently undertaken Office Action. This is an important part of the process, and the Foundation is reviewing each email and documents provided. We offer our unreserved apologies to user 玄客, and we request anyone with additional information to share it through ca@. |
” |
維基百科創始人吉米·威爾斯的個人意見
[编辑]2021年9月17日,User:Assifbus在維基百科和維基媒體基金會共同創始人吉米·威爾斯(Jimmy Wales,即User:Jimbo Wales)的英文維基百科用戶討論頁上发表了对此次基金会行动的意见,同日吉米·威爾斯作出了回應。以下前兩段採用User:Antigng在2021年9月18日 (六) 05:55 (UTC)在基金會行動本地主討論區發布(固定版本)的翻譯版本,並有少量修訂及第三段自行翻譯,摘錄如下:
“ |
对我而言,维基百科最重要的支柱之一就是中立性。(在维基百科上,)来自中国大陆的编者与来自台灣、香港乃至世界各地的编者一样受到欢迎。不受欢迎的是通过有组织的活动操纵议题及噤声他人的企图——无论这种企图来自哪一方。 我能理解以行为不当和操纵议题为由将一批用户逐出门外可能引起(社群的)不安——事实当然如此。但惟有如此,方能确保(日后)公开、公正、不偏不倚的争论得以开展,维基百科得以描述事实,坚持可靠来源,不辜负这些年来我们所珍视和坚守的理念。 瞭解我在這裡的角色也很重要——我並不直接做出或參與這類決定。我不是(基金會)執行長(CEO),我只是我自己。我認為我的職責主要是提醒每個人——(包括)員工、編者、讀者、每一個人——我們的價值觀,並坦率地談論我們都在努力實現的目標。 |
” |
——Jimbo Wales(留言) 2021年9月17日 (五) 18:01 (UTC) |
“ |
For me, one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia is neutrality. Editors from mainland China are welcomed, as are editors from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and all around the world. What is not welcomed is organized efforts to push an agenda and silence others - from any side. I can understand that the removal of a group of editors for misbehavior and agenda pushing can cause turmoil - of course it does. But it is the first step to ensuring that fair, open, and neutral discussions and debates can be had to ensure that Wikipedia speaks the truth, adheres to reliable sources, and lives up to the values that have nourished and sustained us for all these years. It is also important to understand my role here - I don't directly make or get involved with such decisions. I am not the CEO, I am only me. I view my responsibility as mainly to remind everyone - staff, editors, readers, everyone - of our values and to speak plainly about what we are all trying to achieve. |
” |
——Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC) |