Wikipedia:De kroeg/Archief/20220423
WMF Board of Trustees on Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines[bewerken | brontekst bewerken]
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has announced the following statement on next steps concerning the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines:
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, a total of 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments with 77% of the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture that stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. While the Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review, we encouraged voters, regardless of which way they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines that they felt needed to be changed or fixed, as well as why, in case it seemed advisable to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of some of the emerging themes, and as a result we have decided as Community Affairs Committee to ask the Foundation to reconvene the drafting committee and to undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into 4 sections as follows:
- To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the training;
- To simplify the language for easier translation and comprehension by non-experts;
- To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
- To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, and particularly as the draft Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters and are asking staff to facilitate review of these issues. After further engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the revamped Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is then ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with the note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct Policy. We are directing the Foundation to facilitate a review of this language to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community, without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of year.
Again, we thank all who participated, thinking about these critical and difficult challenges and contributing to better approaches across the movement to working together well. DBarthel (WMF) (overleg) 15 apr 2022 21:54 (CEST)
Als je naar verschillende taalversies van Wikipedia kijkt blijkt dat de datum van indienststelling vaak verschilt. Het Nederlandse artikel over de kruiser zegt: In de vaart genomen 30 december 1982. De Fransen zeggen bij Moskva (croiseur) Armé 30 décembre 1983. De Engelse Wikipedia zegt dat Russian cruiser Moskva de eerste keer is Commissioned 30 January 1983. De Duitse zegt bij Projekt 1164 Moskwa Indienststellung 7. Februar 1982. Aljazeera heeft het over Commissioned in late December 1982. The Guardian Commissioned in 1983. Maar tenslotte vond ik hier "officially commissioned for Soviet Navy service on January 30th, 1983". Wij hebben afgesproken dat we oorlogsschepen opnemen met het jaar waarin het voor de eerste keer in dienst werd gesteld. Dat zou dus volgens deze (zo te zien gesprcialiseerde site) 1983 moeten zijn.
Nu had ik net het artikel vernoemd overeenkomstig de indienststelling van de infobox van het artikel. Ik liep bij het fixen van de links er tegenaan dat het wel eens niet kon kloppen en dat klopt dus. De vraag gesteld bij de helpdesk was of ik die vernoeming terug moest draaien of (simpeler) het artikel gewoon opnieuw vermoemen. Het advies was even te wachten tot een echt betrouwbare bron was gevonden.
Ik vond zelf hier ook nog een andere bron, die zegt: "1976 it was laid down at the 61 Kommunar plant in Nikolaev (building number 2008), on July 27, 1979 it was launched, and on December 10, 1981, the crew began to check in, On September 3, 1982, factory trials began, on November 3, 1982, the first embarkation, acceptance certificate was signed on December 30, 1982, the flag was raised, and on February 7, 1983, the cruiser became part of the Black Sea Fleet (150 brigade missile ships of the 30th division, although originally planned for the Pacific Fleet). Chief builder V.P. Furtat. First commander captain 2nd rank V.O. Moskalenko." Kortom, ik doe nu even niets. De vraag is of iemand toegang heeft tot een betrouwbare bron voor de juiste datum wanneer het schip voor het eerst in de vaart kwam (first commissioning), toen onder de naam "Slava". Stunteltje (overleg) 15 apr 2022 23:18 (CEST)