Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:Wikimedia LGBT+/Archive 2

< Talk:Wikimedia LGBT+
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Another Believer in topic Could we choose 6 photos in 2014 that represent global LGBT culture?

Wikimedia Diversity Conference

Latest comment: 10 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion
 

We should discuss how engagement with the LGBT community and Wikimedia LGBT can be represented at the Wikimedia Diversity Conference. --Another Believer (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am available that weekend and being based in London means Berlin is reasonably quick and cheap for me to get to. We have until mid-August to discuss it (that is when booking starts). I have no presentation in my back-pocket, but it may be worth me going to take on learning points and to workshop on what has worked well, and not so well, in outreach and networking on related diversity themes such as gender and disability. --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Varnent, you made a comment on the Diversity Conference talk page that you "disagreed" -- what exactly are you disagreeing with? --Another Believer (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

With the comments by folks that the conference would not be a good place to discuss organizing Wikimedia LGBT. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I responded on the conference talk page, but will reiterate here that my reference to "this place" was actually about the discussion page, not the conference itself. Perhaps that contributed to the confusion. --Another Believer (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: See my proposed program entry here. I'd like to provide conference guests with a general introduction to Wikimedia LGBT. People may or may not know of this group's existence. Part of why I wish to attend the conference is to gauge interest. Feel free to indicate your interest or provide feedback here or at the conference talk page. Thank you. -Another Believer (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be unable to attend as my proposal was not accepted. Oh well, I tried. Hopefully another contributor with interest in Wikimedia LGBT will be able to see how the group could help support the LGBT community. --Another Believer (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
My proposal and application for a travel grant were both rejected. So I'll be unable to represent interests or the perspective of the LGBT community at this event. --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know how the LGBT community is being represented? Perhaps I am not understanding the purpose of this conference...? (I do not mean to directly criticize conference organizers, I am just curious what angle they are taking here.) --Another Believer (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The rejection email I received did not explain much. To be honest I'm wondering if we should sensibly consider organizing our own LGBT specific conference and workshops next year. The topic "diversity" is so wide that I think the central issues we care about will probably get lost amongst long running gendergap projects, wiki-Africa, language outreach and so forth. There's still time to bundle this as a parallel to the 2014 Wikimania in London and partner with LGBT non-Wikimedia projects such as LAGNA, homodoc etc. --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Fae. If anyone hears details about how the LGBT community is being represented at the diversity conference, please share. I think this group would be very interested in what is being proposed and discussed. --Another Believer (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I submitted a proposal for LGBT issues that was accepted and I will be in attendance outside of my AffCom role. In other words, I am there as a LGBT Wikimedian interested in diversity and not any "official" capacity. I cannot speak to why certain proposals were accepted and others were not - my hunch is they were all basically the same (I referenced in mine that ideally multiple LGBT proposals being submitted would be accepted and merged since there was an attempt to have multiple apps to increase our chances of acceptance (or that was my understanding/thinking). I do not know who else was accepted, etc - but my hunch is there will be a LGBT contingency. If few are a part of Wikimedia LGBT - I see that as a growth opportunity as they clearly have an interest in this broader topic of Wiki diversity. The idea of a LGBT conference is interesting - I would be most intrigued by seeing it integrated into Wikimania. I know that other meetings are looking at merging into Wikimania to help reduce overall travels costs for WM projects (each conference usually means half a dozen trips financed by donors for various WMF representatives). I have no idea what the breaking point will be (20 events simultaneously in 4 days may not work) - but it's something to consider and probably most cost-friendly for target audience. Although - I could be totally wrong on that - maybe the appeal is a separate event would be that it's our own and not a part of something bigger like Wikimania - I suppose I could argue it both ways - but as a penny pincher I hope we at least consider a multi-purpose schedule. Although that said, a logical question would be what would the purpose of such a conference be? What would we hope to accomplish that we will not be able to online? Those are the questions I suspect the group will be asked if this idea proceeds. My personal preference would be to get funding to add a LGBT track to next year's diversity conference (with money for LGBT scholarships). My hunch is the current crew did the best they could with limited resources - and I appreciate that they are taking the bold first step of actually having the event. Plus to be fair, Wikimedia LGBT does not exist enough yet to help with things like funding for more scholarships - I personally think focusing on those efforts would be our best path. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 22:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Great news -- congrats on having your proposal accepted! Looking forward to reading your notes from the event. I, too, applaud organizers for hosting this event. (I wish more people would have shared their conference proposals so we could see what was submitted, brainstorm, get ideas, offer feedback, etc. (I mean this in general, not towards you). Again, congrats. I am sure you will represent splendidly. :) --Another Believer (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad to hear you are presenting Greg, could you make your proposal public? I suggest we set hold a regular Wikimedia LGBT Conference as one of our targeted outcomes for further development. Whether this is bundled into Wikimania, becomes a distinct track at the diversity conference, or a track at a non-Wikimedia event are all options to thrash out. --Fæ (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Varnent, have a fun and productive time! Come back with notes, and be sure to twist some arms into joining! (BTW, the page translations are going well, but if you need an action item for multi-lingual folks, we can always use more translators.) --Another Believer (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: Here is a link to the the WMF blog post about the conference, which then links to etherpads, video interviews by attendees and other documentation:
--Another Believer (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Another blog post: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/12/03/brainstorming-wikipedias-diversity/. --Another Believer (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Related to the content of the conference, I raised a question about the LGBT community on the talk page for the recently-created Diversity page here at Meta. --Another Believer (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User group status?

Latest comment: 10 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

I'd like to get some feedback from supporters re: user group status. I have seen the name "LGBT Wikimedians User Group" proposed. Should we conduct outreach work before requesting status, in order to increase awareness as well as the number of supporters? Outreach could be in the form of sending invitations to WikiProject LGBT studies members... --Another Believer (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately it is up to those of you serving as leaders and organizers. However, offering some technical AffCom input, the guidelines for User Groups are such that only 2-3 members are required. It is designed, in part, to be a structure for groups evolving towards Thematic Organization status - which would then require at least 20 active members. My personal hunch is the effort towards becoming a ThOrg would benefit more from invitations than the user group process. Having a user group status may be your "cover" in doing the invites since the group will then be a recognized WMF entity with rights to use specific logos, etc. That said, there is nothing wrong in my mind in the group doing some outreach before applying for User Group status - a group with 15 interested folks would be compelling. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 18:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and added "LGBT Wikimedians User Group" as a user group in discussion. Should a separate page like this one be created as a place to house user group planning and discussion? --Another Believer (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that this page is the best place to talk about the user group, and that there is no need to have a separate page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there other contributors interested in helping this project obtain User Group status? Please see Wikimedia User Groups and Step-by-step user group creation guide for additional information. --Another Believer (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I'd support it becoming a user group as a recognition for the fact that there is a small community. I've said a few times I'm not sure about the viability of thematic orgs, but user group seems a sensible step. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd support user group status as I just cannot see the momentum there or a leader willing to drive things long enough and hard enough for thematic org status to work long term. :/ Beyond that, like Tom, I cannot quite see why thematic org status would be beneficial. If there is a reason, it needs to be explained. (For instance, if there was an area without chapters and where several individuals were told they could not get things done unless organized in this way, that would make sense.) --LauraHale (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    The motivation for setting up a thematic organization would be applying for funding and doing outreach. Funding would be nice so that there could be at least one LGBT scholarhip for Wikimania every year. It might be the case that the Wikimedia Foundation has funding for more than one scholarship per year. I would love to see that go to someone from the Global South who is an LGBT supporter, a Wikipedian, and who would not attend the conference otherwise.
    Various people have proposed LGBT outreach projects. While the Wikimedia Foundation will not itself fund staff time, it will fund chapters who can themselves fund staff time. It would be awesome to have someone who works in the LGBT cultural sector be a Wikipedian in Residence for LGBT interests. That would be possible if this project had a critical mass of participants, filed for thematic organization status, and then applied for annual funding. Considering that the Wikimedia Foundation wants more diversity in gender, I think that it would look on funding requests for this project favorably. I also think that LGBT organizations would co-sponsor such a position when it was in their interest to have someone promoting regional LGBT culture and history, which it often would be.
    Does any of this satisfy you as an explanation of what benefit could come from starting along the path to become a thematic organization? Incidentally, I want this to happen because I want to see LGBT health issues better covered on Wikipedia, and in Western countries, that is a huge and ineffective funding mess. In the United States every time a person becomes infected with HIV about USD 600k is economically lost, and accordingly, an LGBT center in practically every major city gets public health funding to do outreach to LGBT persons perceived to be at higher risk for disease than non LGBT populations. The goal is to prevent infections, and for better or worse, a lot of public health planning and funding is looking at lowering aggregate health costs in a particular region. When prevention is less expensive than treatment, then politicians have pressure on them to fund prevention programs. In all cases of HIV prevention efforts and increasingly moreso, some of that money goes to online outreach which is not Wikipedia. I really would like to drive some of public health educational outreach funding to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is where LGBT people go to read online information about LGBT issues anyway. Wikipedia is also the world's most consulted source of information on HIV and AIDS. Partnering with health organizations and negotiating with governments cannot happen through volunteers; I need an organizational backend to support me and others for me to initiate these talks. I would like for Wikimedia LGBT to be a partner for LGBT health outreach. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I am still not certain I see the benefit. Various people have proposed LGBT related projects. Did they do these through chapters? Did they apply though the IEG? Did they apply for participation grants? Do you have any reason to suspect that Wikimedia LGBT can show the metrics to demonstrate potential FDC funding? Why is an existing chapter not viable for trying to get a Wikipedian in Residency? (Indeed, why do you need a chapter period?) I understand LGBT intolerance and health issues, but that appears to be disconnected from the practical issues on the ground specifically as it pertains to the WMF and potential benefits.) Is there any evidence that global south contributors and other areas where LGBT people are discriminated against would be likely to get a scholarship based on being LGBT when they were unlikely to get a scholarship? Can you provide examples? Chapter and thematic org and WMF related committee people would get scholarships based on their participation there. GLAM and education type conferences generally require a demonstration of being involved with GLAM or education to be eligible. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am unclear the benefits. (Plus, not helped by this appearing to be an all an all guy thing and an English speaking community thing.) (Also, where did you get the information that LGBT people go to Wikipedia for information on LGBT issues? I'd love to see that research.) I'm still not clear on the need for this and why existing chapters and thematic orgs have been rejected, where there has been discrimination that needs to be addressed in terms of the movement discriminating against LGBT people, which is the unstated implication here. --LauraHale (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
"(Plus, not helped by this appearing to be an all an all guy thing and an English speaking community thing.)" This is a fair concern, but I would argue that very little outreach has been completed so far. The LGBT community is multi-cultural, multi-national, and multi-lingual; I imagine the pool of interested participants and supporters will reflect this over time. Should we consider a major outreach campaign to drive traffic to this page before applying for user group status? Part of me would rather jump through hoops knowing there is greater buy-in from the global community. --Another Believer (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
In response to AB - no, I do not think we should drive traffic here before sorting out a system to encourage project participants to seek support from the Wikimedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation. If we set up a usergroup first - a process which should just take an hour assuming that three people in the world can be identified to sign on - then we can promise that anyone who wants to do an LGBT outreach event can apply to use the Wikipedia name and logo, can get review if they ever apply for a grant to do an LGBT event, and can get LGBT group support if they apply for a scholarship to attend a Wikimedia event. Since this should be such a lower barrier as compared to doing a major outreach campaign, I feel that we should set up minimal legitimacy first then do the outreach.
In response to LauraHale - your arguments might based on the premise that there is a significant cost to setting this up and that the benefits are not justified by the costs. The benefits for this group are for the same as any other usergroup but for LGBT people, and also it has the benefit of being an online center of LGBT culture which acts as steward of the most popular informational holdings on LGBT issues- now you can see the benefit and judge whether that is significant to you. If 20 people in the world use this group in the next ten years then it is worth the startup costs. I see the setup of a usergroup as a 10-hour yearly commitment for each of 3 people, and the benefits would have a value greater than the value of that time. In response to your other concerns -
  • I have no idea who has ever applied for grants, and if applicants for LGBT projects have ever tried to apply. As a comparison, there was no project organizing for women's issues on Wikipedia before the Gender Gap project, and after that project started people appeared. Since WikiProject LGBT is already one of the most actively watched WikiProjects on English Wikipedia, I expect that an organization recognizing and supporting that community would be popular.
  • I also agree that GLAM and education conferences should require that attendees have a qualification for attending, and being LGBT or allied is not a qualification to replace subject matter expertise. However, I would like to favor LGBT participation just like the Gender Gap project favors women.
  • No one wants LGBT projects here or elsewhere to be an all guy thing but because Wikipedia is a place for boys (again, see Gender gap) and because LGBT activism is a place for non-cis-females (due to HIV prevention funding, which affects gay cis-males, transgender females, and transgender males in much greater percentages than it does either gay or straight cis-females. The largest and most active LGBT organizations in most places exist because of HIV prevention funding.). That is a problem and I do not know how to address it, but if anyone has ideas then I want them to get funding to do whatever they like to do girls' outreach.
  • All Wikimedia projects are strongly favored to English speakers, even Wikipedias in non-English languages. I want this project to favor non-English speakers but English speakers control the funding so English speakers should start it and solicit turnover to non-English speakers.
  • There is no evidence that people in the Global South are being denied LGBT scholarships, but the Wikimedia Foundation is committed to increased Global South outreach. There are no publicly documented examples of LGBT people ever having been denied a scholarship. If scholarships were available then perhaps people would apply, and if no one applies, then nothing is lost by not awarding the scholarship except some setup and announcement time.
  • The chapter could be set up to apply for funding and review and award a few scholarships a year. This would be in alignment with movement goals of increasing gender diversity - "gender gap" is not just a gap between two genders - and this really could be a low-stress and low-maintenance project to identify and support any person anywhere in the world who wants to develop LGBT content on Wikipedia in a big way, should one ever surface. Right now, if that person surfaces then that person might not be identified and supported by the community.
  • The cost of all this to start is the cost of the WMF making a few LGBT scholarships available per year. This is not an unreasonable request and is certainly proportionate to other movement costs. If you have attended a Wikimania event then I presume you would have seen how the LGBT participation rates in the Wikipedia community are higher than the LGBT incidence rate of general society.
  • There is no specific research about any population using Wikipedia for anything, but since Wikipedia is Google's favorite website any population which uses Google also uses Wikipedia. LGBT people use Google. At the very least I could show you data that Wikipedia is the world's most popular source of information on HIV, and that is critical information to deliver to the LGBT community. See the traffic for LGBT in English - this article is well within the top 0.1% of Wikipedia article by popularity as measured by pageviews, and since Wikipedia is the world's most popular non-personal information site, I think that makes fair supporting evidence that the Wikipedia article on LGBT is the single most popular source of LGBT information on the Internet. If it is the most popular source on the Internet then probably it is also the most popular in the world, because no other single media source comes close to the attention that a most-popular Internet article gets.
Is that a good start to addressing your concerns? Ask fewer questions in sequence and I would address them more fully, if you like. We could also Skype to talk things through. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Well said, Lane, re: this being a guys club for English speakers. I do not think anyone here wants exclusivity. I believe this project has a lot of potential and could be very beneficial to the Wikimedia movement. I am interested in seeing this group formalize, but other active contributors and leaders in the movement need to step up and volunteer their expertise, time and energy. Please raise your hand or contact me if you are interested. --Another Believer (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: I left a note on Wikitanvir's talk page re: steps necessary for user group status. --Another Believer (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought about creating a new discussion area for this but I decided it fit with the old discussion more. After seeing the Proposed blog post I saw that it talks about discussions to become a Thematic Org rather then a user group. I'm especially interested given the fact that we've seen the affcom willing to give the status out recently (which was not necessarily the case earlier in the process here). A thematic org seems out of place so far, it (like any formal incorporated body) adds cost and complexity from the start (both one off and every year before you get to do good) and is not an action that should be taken until the group is well and proper on it's way and the benefits outweigh the cost (and for many groups it never will). I'm not completely sure I see that yet for this group but am certainly willing to be proven wrong. A thematic org also seems to imply much more 'exclusivity' which I'm not completely sure I'm comfortable with that yet. Having a separate user group called "LGBT Wikimedians in San Francisco" would seem fine but having that when there is an overarching incorporated body you weren't connected too would seem problematic. This seems especially true since experience in the projects has said that there is an enormous wealth of LGBT(+) Wikipedians/wikisourceans(?)/wikimedians etc and only a relatively small amount of people interested in pursuing this so far.

I also wanted to post here because I see this discussion (with a lot of people seeming to support the creation of a user group) but I see no discussion after on why we decided to stop forming the user group and do the thematic org instead. If there was a discussion and I'm just blind (always possible) then please feel free to point me to it and I can chime in there (or point them here if a discussion gets started). Jamesofur (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason the conversation halted was because the group has not identified three people who want their names on the application for user group status. The reason why the thematic organization talk came up is because this project has always been imagined as international in scope. I support this project as an incubator for a thematic organization. When there are 30 active participants in the usergroup internationally (or whatever the standard is) then I would support this project applying for thematic organization status, but I would not imagine that could happen in the next two years. Different people have their own motivations for contributing to LGBT content on Wikimedia projects, but my own personal vision for this group is as a communication channel for delivering HIV educational materials in every language to every LGBT community center in the world. HIV is a condition which disproportionately affects men who have sex with men and historically, this demographic is disinclined to accept information targeted to the general population and inclined to accept information from LGBT groups. I have no interest in "LGBT Wikipedians in X place" - I only want to participate if there is a global multilingual vision in this, which is why I support the foundation of a usergroup which has hope of becoming something bigger.
In an attempt to identify three people who would want their names on the usergroup application, user:Another Believer has posted advertisements for people to register their support for this group. About 30 people are listed now. Soon I and whoever else wishes to do so will begin contacting these people and ask them if they would take the lead on registering as a usergroup. I know of no one who intends to make a thematic org application at any time before large numbers of active contributors associate themselves with this project, and right now, this group does not even have three people who want coordination roles. Also as with the precedents of the Wiki Project Med and the Education Program, it seems like the thematic organization application process may be burdensome and not worth seeking soon anyway, as it is a costly process with dubious benefits. Most desired benefits would be gained by being a usergroup. Does that answer your question of where this group is and what next steps are? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
James: others might disagree, but I never imagined achieving thorg status without first jumping through the user group hoops. Before pressing hard for user group status, I have just been trying to recruit active contributors. As for the blog post, which mentioned the goal of thorg status, I do think it is true that the long-term goal might be thorg status, but I have no problem if the post is changed to make the more immediate goal of user group status apparent. --Another Believer (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Another Believer (and Bluerasberry) that clarifies some things. To be fair, I will be happy to have my name down on a usergroup application, but not on a thorg anytime soon. Jamesofur (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Outreach

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Greetings, project members,
There has been much activity on the LGBT mailing list today and on the talk page for the proposed blog post, so I thought it might be nice to centralize discussion here instead. If we are going to have a conversation about the composition of this group and outreach initiatives, then this is the most appropriate place to have that discussion, where the greatest number of people can participate. I am not going to detail the accusations that have been made (people are welcome to re-address them here now if they wish), but the general concern is a lack of representation among all parts of the LGBT community.

I would like to point out that this group has not actually executed much outreach to date; people who have signed up as supporters/participants of this project have largely done so as passer-bys here at Meta or perhaps because they attended an LGBT meetup at a past Wikimania conference. I have spent some time recruiting support for the project, mostly by posting invitations on the talk pages of established and proposed user groups and thematic organizations here at Meta, and by reaching out to other active leaders in the movement who work on the GLAM Program, the Education Program, etc. This is because I believe Wikimedia LGBT has the potential to collaborate with each of these groups. Some people I invited simply based on their quality contributions to LGBT-related articles -- most of the time I have no way of knowing whether they are male or female, gay or straight, their nationality, etc.

I think we are now at a point where outreach is necessary in order to fulfill the mission and goals of the group. One way to do this is with the proposed Wikimedia blog post. Another way is to send talk page invitations to members of WikiProject LGBT studies at Wikipedia. I hope to do this by the end of the calendar year. See the above discussion re: mass invitation distribution; any input is helpful. I will start with English Wikipedia, being my home Wikipedia and native language, but I would certainly encourage distribution within other projects and in different languages.

The purpose of this group is to improve content on all Wikimedia projects that is of interest to the LGBT community, among other tasks. People are able to participate and support the group's efforts regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. Some people have expressed feeling like an outsider, not welcome in a group dominated by gay men. I think we are all aware of the gender gap within the movement, which is also reflected here. Should we try to address this concern? Absolutely. I welcome all constructive criticism and recommendations.

I could make this post much longer, but really I just wish to get the conversation started. Thanks for your time. --Another Believer (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  • You say: "I think we are all aware of the gender gap within the movement, which is also reflected here. Should we try to address this concern? Absolutely". Can you provide more details about this? At the start of the mailing list, there were a number of active female participants. This number has dwindled and there are currently no women on the list actively supporting the group. What do you think are the causes for this? What changes are being made? --LauraHale (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that the causes for this include Wikipedia's gender gap and the LGBT movement's gender gap, and how both movements have restrictions against female participation. Other causes may exist; I am not aware of anyone articulating them on this board. The change being made to make the group more inclusive is by making the group more public with general advertising and supporting all visitors whenever they propose an aligned project. This group may not meet everyone's desires but I would like for it to be useful for the people who wish to propose Wikipedia-related projects through it and collaborate with others in executing those projects. If I ever heard of a female Wikipedian executing a project which promotes LGBT interests then I would support her efforts by listing it on this group page, but so far as I know, no female has yet done this. If the group is well-advertised then I feel that those people who would like to become aware of it will become aware of it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to support Another Believer's welcome for all constructive criticism and recommendations. Specific recommendations would be particularly welcome. --Fæ (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Laura, I cannot answer your question as to why female participation has "dwindled" because I have not observed the amount of active female participation declining to a non-existent state. I am not discrediting your perspective, but I simply mean to say that I personally have not observed what you've described. Did I join the mailing list after there was a period of high female participation? I have been on the list for a while now, and I would say that activity was pretty limited by all (regardless of gender), until more recently. Not to take away from the work of earlier project organizers, which was very important, but just by examining the list of participants, you can see that only five people signed up between April and September 2012. Then there was a very long lag. Then, a burst of activity; since August 2013, 32 people signed on to support the project! This is absolutely something to celebrate and is the result of advertising/outreach. As I mentioned before, invitations were distributed on chapter/thorg/user group talk pages here at Meta, and I also targeted movement leaders and people based on their quality contributions to LGBT-related articles. In many cases I did not know the gender or sexual orientation of these individuals. I do know, however, that some of them are female, and some of them are straight men. These people have come together to support the group's mission, which is to develop quality content on Wikimedia projects. Does this mission require someone to be female, or gay, or transgendered? No. As a collective, do we seek diversity and representation among all sectors of the LGBT community? Absolutely. So I ask again, what specific recommendations do you have for bringing into the group representation for female, lesbian and transgendered individuals (which are the groups you say are not being included)? --Another Believer (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It has been a goal of mine to distribute WM LGBT invitations to current and inactive members of WikiProject LGBT studies at English Wikipedia by the end of the calendar year. That being said, this is just a goal for the purpose of keeping momentum going, and I can be convinced otherwise if project members have reason for a delay. Since that deadline is coming up in a few weeks, I thought I would ask one more time about our outreach efforts. Despite my requests for constructive criticism and recommendations here and in private, I have received no response. It is hard for me to know what to change or do differently when I am not given feedback, so I continue moving forward...

Does anyone oppose mass invitation distribution to WikiProject LGBT studies at this time? I would probably also request distribution to users in the Wikipedia categories "Gay Wikipedians", etc. Should any changes be made to the invitation seen in the above "Chapter outreach?" section? Again, all feedback is welcome. Lane had a great idea of including an action item in the invitation. Thoughts or suggestions? --Another Believer (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I support an invite to encourage wider participation. An action item at the start of the invite would be good. Perhaps considering the month, it could include best wishes for the season and invite LGBT interested folks to take part in something specific like a vote on one of our key issues? You can expect delays or forgotten responses due to the holidays (some, like me, will be on a wiki-break due to being busy this month) and some may object to the idea of WM-LGBT formalizing itself, but I suspect that will be a small minority.
Mass notices can be annoying, so it would be good to mention this is a one-off note and they need to opt-in to get any more notices from us, or join the email list if they prefer.
Sorry I don't have time to focus on something this month, I would have liked to arrange a fun vote for some of the best LGBT culture-related photos on Commons from 2013, as a way of promoting our Free Media Collective project. At this rate it may be something to deliver before Wikimania. --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User group name

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Right now, the proposed user group name is "LGBT Wikimedians User Group". Does anyone think this implies that a Wikimedian should be LGBT to be part of the group? I almost wonder if something like "LGBT Community User Group" or something else might be less targeted. Thoughts? --Another Believer (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question. We want this group to be open to all kinds of people that are not necessarily LGBT, or don't have KGBT people in their immediate relatives, but just support the cause by simple principle of equality and respect (or that really don't like those that attempt to oppose the communities, including those which may also exist within the so-called "LGBT community" (I have seen lots of LGBT people misbehaving too against heterosexuals, or against those that want to marry, or those that want to remain single, or people that prefer an asexual life, or that don't respect the other gender types they do not belong too, including gays against lesbians, or the reverse, and many of them also opposed to transsexuals, or assumed bisexuals that don't want to understand either heterosexuals, nor gays and lesbians, as if they were anormal when they are not experimenting all ways of living their sexuality or exposing their related social behaviors and cultural supports).
Even within the gay-only community (this is were this is the most problematic) there are also strong oppositions related to their sexual or social behavior, and even more when we start speaking religion and politics.
So even if the terms "LGBT Community" is better than "LGBT Wikimedians", it is both too narrow... and too large! I would then propose "Respect LGBT Wikimedia User Group", but in fact I would extend it to also include all forms of gender-related irrespect, including people opposed to sexism, in this user group.
So it should better be something like "Respect Genders Wikimedia User Group", or "Genders Peace on Wikimedia", or "Genders Peace" for short (if we in fact open it to people outside Wikimedia too).
However some LGBT activists will proably oppose such denomination as they will think this would lower their LGBT influence and social exposure: they absolutely want to see "LGBT" (some of them also wonder why "BT" are present and want to focus on their sexual difference). There's no easy response, except possibly by grouping several more activist groups in a joint program, as long as they respect other subgroups, and accept also to work in good relationships with other minority groups (e.g. handicapped people, religious minorities, foreign minorities in a host country, interracial and interethnic conflicts, those speaking another language...), or majority groups (e.g. sexism against women, or intolerance against "aged" people in western countries including between gays themselves). verdy_p (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could borrow something from the naming of Wiki Project Med here.--Pharos (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Or probably not. As I did not know this project, I was wondering what it was related to. Using unevident abbreviations was a bad idea. It may explain why this project is almost unknown from most, except possibly in English Wikipedia within its local discussions for the local medical portal. This name has not passed the elementary test. We may accept invented terminology or abbreviations only in projects largely promoted by the Wikimedia foundation and that has been widely internationalized or supported on lots of local wikis. Our interest here is to be international and our objectives must be clearly understood without falling into a trap of wiki-jargon. So we need an explicit name, even if it's long, and even if there's a smart abbreviation which should still make sense. Also we are not speaking here about a wiki project, but a user group (whose scope goes further than just our wikis
(even the Wikimedia Foundation does not restrict itself to using the wiki format, it is involved as well in emails, IRC channels, and it also has blogs using other CMS than just MediaWiki. MediaWiki is just a tool for the Wikimedia Foundation, which was necessary to help it start, but there are also other tracks followed because its ultimate goal is not to support MediaWiki, but develop free knowledge. May be later the Wikiemdia foundation will change its own name to something like "Free Knowledge Foundation", and then let MEdiaWiki continue its own life as a separate project; MediaWiki really starts being outdated and is now seen as an obstacle to the development or just persistence of the community, when new contributors arrivals are stalling but more are leaving the project). MEdiaWiki is too much technical for new users that already experience other tools that are much easier and faster to use on the web.
Keep this in mind, we are also not restricted to wikis; it is not the ultimate goal of this group. verdy_p (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, Verdy. Names that include "Respect" are problematic to me, because 1) they give a demand and 2) they are activist in tone. The purpose of the group is not to demand respect from people. The purpose of the group is to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikimedia projects. Pharos, I am not opposed to something like "Wiki Project LGBT", which is generic enough but also focused. It defines the project type and its content focus. --Another Believer (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
How can a term like "respect" be considered as an activist word and be perceived negatively ? First, it is part of the description of the group itself. It is also part of Wikimedia objectives and rules.
Dropping it would make the term "genders" alone too weak. And also the ultimate goal of incresing the exposure of LGBT topics is that knowledge and public exposures helps redusing unjustified fears, and helps prevents abuses. It does not mean that this coverage must only be promotion, it just has to speak about the reality, without hiding defects. But may be what you want is just a "WikiPride" (but this name is already used for another subproject relate to seasonal events, when the user group should have permanent activities throughout the years).
But dropping the terms "User Group" for "WikiProject" will not help having the user group recognized as an affiliate, and it will cause confusion because WikiProjects are local to each wiki, when here the group is aimed to work across wikis, and even with other non Wikimedia groups around the world, and through various Internet channels that may be appropriate to collect the knowledge, and disseminate it for better outreach.
This user group should campaign to be recognized as an affiliate when it will start creating real projects (such as history of LGBT, or official presence in national or international events, including in Wikimania, or to finance a permanent point of contact for situations of emergencies (with cooperation with the other news medias, or with defense groups), or to support the creation of a very secure service that can be reached internationally and not subject to local censorship, possibly with help with other activist organizations like Reporters Without Borders, that train their journalists and their contacts in field, to keep them safe, or if it needs money for legal advocacy and also wants some support from other approved organizations).
In essence, this group is clearly activist (and the Wikimedia movement too, for promoting free knowledge to every human, but in all domains and topics). Wikimedia has several other topic-related user groups for cross-site collaborations (e.g. for GLAM: this extends to more than just Wikimedia sites). verdy_p (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Conference 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Any thoughts on possible representation for this group? I'm not sure which groups qualify. --Another Believer (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It is by invitation. It might be already settled... I still hope to support the establishment of a usergroup before the NYC conference in May and help present something in London in August. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
We would have to be "officially recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation", which seems fair enough as a clear criteria. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I see. I was not sure what "other groups" meant at the top of the conference page. --Another Believer (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Wiki Project Med was invited last year and two people presented. That group has no official WMF recognition, but is doing multiple projects, and is legally incorporated. The invitations are based on community need and the German chapter's discretion so far as I know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Translations

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

How great that project pages are already being translated to Chinese, Japanese, Persian and Spanish. Does anyone know any French or German speakers that could translate into those languages? --Another Believer (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: The project's main page now exists (at least partially) in 17 languages. From English, it has been translated at least 85% in 5 languages. Again, if you are multi-lingual or know Wikimedians with translating experience, please ping them for help! --Another Believer (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm impressed, great work by all those with these skills. --Fæ (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Update: The project's main page now exists (at least partially) in 22 languages. From English, it has been translated at least 85% in 9 languages. --Another Believer (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

LGBT edit-athons

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Given the success of campaigns like ArtAndFeminism 2014, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves Libraries, etc., I wonder if we should consider attempting to promote a series of LGBT-related edit-athons. I've been planning to host an edit here in Portland in the spring, but perhaps this could be an opportunity to do something much bigger. Obviously, there is the Wiki Loves Pride campaign for June, but perhaps something before then? I think WLP lends itself towards photography at pride events, though edit-athons in conjunction with pride month are certainly possible. Are there any other dates in the spring that are significant to the LGBT movement? --Another Believer (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Page moves?

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

Is everyone okay with Wikimedia LGBT redirecting to Wikimedia LGBT/Portal? I would like to think translating would be possible without the redirect, but it looks like the individual who moved the page is quite familiar with best practices. Just bringing it here to make sure everyone is on board. --Another Believer (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the translation bar (at the top of the page) shows that the page has not been translated much into many of the languages, which is not the case. --Another Believer (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
See the mover's response here: User_talk:Verdy_p#Translation_request. --Another Believer (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed almost all I could (I think) to have the full portal translated in native languages. There will certainly be more modifications later, but at least the full framework is there and can be used as a model.
If you find quirks, don't hesitate to contact me when needed, I'll try to do my best. Now it's up to you to complete the partial translations and review them in the translate tool, or to add new languages. If you translate the main portal page, visit also its category to find the subcategory for the templates it uses and which are also translatable.
I hope that I have fixed all issues remaining with RTL languages for their layout, as it seems to work correctly for Farsi. You should now be able to complete Arabic, Hebrew, Maldivian, Dari, Pashto and Urdu: these are important RTL languages to cover for severely harassed LGBT users in the Middle-East and South Asia if you want to help them...
This framework should also work well now with South-East Asian languages whose scripts require "tall" fonts (i.e. higher values of line-height than the default used in MediaWiki for English, notably Khmer, Lao and Tibetan), as well as sinographic languages or those using complex scripts (for which bold or italic styles are not friendly with the default fonts sizes of this wiki, smaller than the browser's default, a very bad aspect of MediaWiki's Vector skin). verdy_p (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
@Verdy p: Thank you for your work. If see you signed up as a supporter/participant for Wiki Loves Pride -- please consider supporting the overall Wikimedia LGBT project as well. (By the way, I liked having the Participants page transcluded to the main page. Is there a way to put that back?) --Another Believer (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't the list of participant a duplicate in the top tabs ? Also if you expect this list to be quite long, it should remain on a separate pages, where the main portal page should present other subjects or events, in just a summary way, even if there are nav tabs at the top to present these topics more completely. Don't you think so ? verdy_p (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Lane, this was Verdy's response when I asked the same question on his talk page: "The renaming is caused by a caveat of the translate tool used now: there should be no other subpage in a parent page, than language pages. Otherwise we get into severe havoc while maintaining the translations." --Another Believer (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure that I follow. Right now there is a subpage, right? The main or parent page is being deprecated and everyone is being referred to a subpage. Right now languages are set up to go to Wikimedia_LGBT/Portal/de or wherever, but would it not be better that Wikimedia LGBT is main and Wikimedia LGBT/de would be the subpage? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. "/Portal" is super-ugly and should be completely unnecessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I, too, would prefer not to have the page redirected to /Portal, but I assumed Verdy's edits were made in good faith and for justifiable reasons unknown to me. Verdy, are you able to clarify why you made the page redirect to /Portal? --Another Believer (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with MZMcBride. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
verdy_p, is there any reason why I should not move this and all the other language versions to Wikimedia LGBT? Thanks for setting this up, but if there is no reason to put everything in this portal structure then I would move it all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There was a reason, and it was related to the maintenance of the translations themselves (the translation extension has several issues, one of them is when there are subpages in a page that needs to be fully translated, and that are not longuage codes, it attempts to rename them or mix up them during updates; to avoid the issue, which may no longet exist now that these pages are fully translatable, I had to separate them in distinct subsets; note that the translate extension does not just move one page, it moves a full series; and does not work very well when thre are also redirects to some of the translated pages)
IF you follow the history of the renamen before the other updates I made to the page to make it work correctly, and allow fixing the various redirects, you'll see that I did know that this could cause troubles temporarily. However I don't think there remains any issue, all links are working, including the shortcut link.
If you ever want to rename it back out of the subpage, beware of the issues with redirection pages and the Special:Mylanguage/* pages. I don't think this is worth the troubles, and we would reopen the issues still existing in the translate extension (which not only renames pages, but also deletes their previous version, not creating, or inverting the necessary redirects; it also write-rotects too many pages as if they were part of the translation, but that will never be translated and never updated. In other words, for now, a page submitted to the translate extension should never have any other subpage than the translations themselves (also it should not have the subpage for the default english language, as it will never be updated correctly and will not be editable due to another current bug). verdy_p (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
@Verdy p: I've never heard of problems with subpages and translations. It should not causes any problems with MyLanguage, and it is easy to tell which subpages are language codes and which aren't, even in a template or Lua. /Portal is ugly. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
There were various problems because the pages had many other problems for full translatability with correct layout (this included not just the page itself but as well the various templates used and the fact they used different methods for translating them. The transforms were made progressively by fixng them one by one. May be we could now change back to the simpler base name. Bfore I made the changes it was impossible to make the necessary changes without producing various issues
But I still don't see what is broken, gven the tabbed structure of the pages, translated separately.
One reason of the subpages is also realted to the way the tabs are rendered (its very trcky to dtermine what is the currently selected tab if we have to test both the page name, and subpages for other tabs. I initially made this simple instead of introducing tricky code.
Do you see cases where the links are not going to the right place? verdy_p (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Verdy p: Do you know how to remove the "Template loop detected" tag on the main page? --Another Believer (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Which page exactly ? I have seen that this could happen with the initial design of Template:TNT (the reason is documented on the doc page).
There's an easy workaround that uses TNTN instead (which just returns the name of the translated template, without expanding it itself (exactly to avoi the self-recursion within TNT called from separate templates including themselves). The doc gives an example of where it is used, but there are many others. TNT may be unsafe is some cases, where TNTN works in all cases.
But the loop that could occur because of translated templates included in other newly translated templates has been fixed where I detected it (including in this portal).
May be it's just in one unsynchronized translation to be updated, but I do not see the loop. verdy_p (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Verdy, I was referring to Wikimedia LGBT/Portal, but the issue appears to have been resolved. Thank you. --Another Believer (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Batch upload: Wellcome

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See Commons:Batch uploading/Wellcome Images CC-BY and Category:Files from Wellcome Images.

This is great stuff, and the project appears to be a work in progress. Thank you for your work on this, Fae. --Another Believer (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's still a work in progress. I'll stick with it until the Wellcome is ready. --Fæ (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride at English Wikipedia

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I went ahead and created a page for Wiki Loves Pride at English Wikipedia. The page is currently under construction, but feel free to add your name to the list of participants, if you wish. Given the success of the recent ArtAndFeminism campaign, a couple other Wikimedians and I have started discussing the possibility of having a global LGBT campaign in June, with meetups organized as edit-a-thons or even photography projects (pride parades and associated events).

  • perhaps we could have a section with dates for confirmed pride parades and events?
  • how much information about Wikimedia LGBT should be carried over to English Wikipedia?
  • section for "upcoming events", where volunteers have offered to organize local meetups
  • separate page for newsletter recipients and other announcements?
  • ideally, news about the campaign will spread and there will be a section for Press
  • other resources? local and national LGBT organizations, with links?
  • other thoughts?

Please let me know your thoughts. Advice for the page? Advice for organizing a global campaign? Volunteer to help the project, or organize a local meetup? Thoughts on how to separate edit-a-thons from photography projects? etc. --Another Believer (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have created a page specific to 2014 activities (the main WLP page will provide an overview of the campaign across all years... thinking of the future here!), plus a navbox, categories, etc. As soon as there are media files specific to Wiki Loves Pride, I will create a category at Commons as well. Really, I am just prepping for rollout. --Another Believer (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Group members, please consider adding your name to this newly-created list of Wiki Loves Pride participants. Even if you are unable to host an event in June, it would be helpful to have as much support as possible, plus it means you will receive future notices at English Wikipedia. Oh, and add the WLP pages to your watchlist to stay up to date. Thanks! --Another Believer (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Should Arbcom choose to lift my "sexuality" topic ban on the English Wikipedia when I appeal later this month, which seems currently interpreted in a way to stop me from touching almost any LGBT topic, including the history of women's rights, I might be able to add my name to help. --Fæ (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2015

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have added a comparison table for LGBT safety at Talk:Wikimania_2015_bids#LGBT_safety_rating_for_Wikimania_bids. Please do add any thoughts or suggested changes there.

Hopefully the judging team will choose a location that we can all feel safe attending. --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that table together. --Another Believer (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiConference USA

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have submitted a presentation about Wikimedia LGBT for the upcoming WikiConference USA, to be held in NYC in late-May. --Another Believer (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Could we choose 6 photos in 2014 that represent global LGBT culture?

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

It would be great to have some good quality photos that both strongly represent aspects of LGBT culture, preferably are in use in the Wikimedia projects and that we could reliably reuse in LGBT leaflets and wiki pages. I'm thinking these would not have to be Commons Featured Pictures, but it would be useful to make this part of a long running but small-ish competition during the year.

Obviously Pride events generate a lot of photos, but a balance of other photos giving a spread of LGBT related events, every-day life for LGBT people or portraits of LGBT notable people would be useful. I do a lot on Commons, but my experience leads me to think that a process separate from the standard process might be useful, in particular there might be great mobile or pocket-camera photos taken at live events that capture an immediacy that would never get good ratings in the standard featured pictures process. 6 photos is potentially enough for a desk-calendar while 12 ramps up the burden on whoever is having to judge or find photos.

Would there be sufficient interest to run a small-scale 2014 competition or search activity on recent photos, possibly completing in time for Wikimania? --Fæ (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Fae, I am not exactly sure what would be required, but I would try to help in one way or another. (As a side note, my hope is that for Wiki Loves Pride, in addition to coordinating a global edit-a-thon, there could be some people working on photography projects. In Portland, I help to organize monthly photo campaigns (see appropriate section here). For the month of June, the campaign will be called "Pride PDX" and will attempt to photograph local LGBT establishments, history and culture. It would be nice if this could be replicated elsewhere, too.) --Another Believer (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, are there even any LGBT-related images that have been promoted to valued, quality or featured status? --Another Believer (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I did check the 5,500 images at FP status, 3 were related to LGBT but none was specific to LGBT culture. If we are having a few meet-up and editathons over the summer, it should be possible to start putting interesting images together as candidates; all we need to do is have an "WM-LGBT group recommended images" category, we can sort out an evaluation process or prize competition later. --Fæ (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Fae, did you get a response from Wellcome Trust about those HIV posters? Did you have in mind 2014 photos or just any historical photos? Wellcome was asserting free licenses on some interesting content which is exemplary of the movement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I have had a recent follow-up email but due to other projects within the Wellcome there has been a delay. I'm hoping this will really happen in around another month. I agree the Act Up material was pretty wonderful stuff, and the 1990s period gay sex education material was really interesting to look back on (I remember it the first time around). It all remains on my check-list. --Fæ (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What is global LGBT culture, as opposed to the LGBT culture from English speaking countries spread to other countries through the media? What images would represent the world's LGBT people?--RachelWex (talk) 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_LGBT%2B/Archive_2&oldid=16549977"
Return to "Wikimedia LGBT+/Archive 2" page.