Talk:Wikimedia LGBT/Request for WMF board resolution on homophobia

Proper venue[edit]

Hello, please note that if you do decide to request a board resolution, for any topic, a wiki-way to do it is via the Board noticeboard. –SJ talk 22:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual preference[edit]

Hi, you used the word "sexual preference" in the draft. I suggest to change it to "sexual orientation or gender identity" because AFAIK based on some scientific researches that relieved being gay, straight or bi is not something that people choose, major scientific associations (like APA) are highly recommending to use "sexual orientation" instead of preference Amir (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it in since it doesn't seem to be a controversial addition to make, and I've changed "preference" to "orientation". Due to Chelsea Manning and the fighting that went on on enwiki, I feel that "gender identity" is an important addition to make. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Foundation will establish"[edit]

The Foundation will establish an independent appeal process, supported by experienced volunteers representing a diverse range of minority groups, for users who feel they have not received sufficient support on any Wikimedia project using the local dispute and request processes.

Is this "independent appeal process" meant to be a backdoor for people such as Fæ (main author of this proposal) to block others when the projects themselves don't block them or see those people as being bad? What powers and tools would this "independent appeal process" have? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the WMF establishes an independent appeal process then it should be for all appeals, not just LGBT appeals. Also, I am not sure that an independent appeal process is needed at all. If WM LGBT has any problems then it can just make some noise and see what happens. This is the usual way for the Wikimedia community to express concerns. Why would more be needed than that? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't only apply to the LGBT community[edit]

I just came across this timely reminder which was placed on the Disabled Wikipedians category on enwp by an editor who identifies as both "queer" (sic) and disabled. Personally, I believe that any form of discrimination, whether because of sexual preference, ability, or anything else, should be dealt with swiftly and firmly by the WMF and by the community at large. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 12:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm clearly a little confused. The title of this proposal is "Request for WMF board resolution on homophobia", yet it also states in the draft policy that it should apply to "discrimination against staff or volunteers on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or perceived membership of other minority groups". It would seem to me that the title should be changed to reflect this diversity. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 12:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Request for WMF board resolution on abuse against minorities"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Request for WMF board resolution on discrimination against minorities" is better I think Amir (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or - just "Request for WMF board resolution on discrimination"--TParis (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No tolerance"[edit]

The statement "The Wikimedia Foundation has no tolerance for any activity which could be construed as incitement to racial, religious or homophobic hatred or any other behaviour meant to deliberately bring upon a person harassment, alarm or distress." is currently in the draft. I do not know how to change this but I do not like it.

Lots of behavior can be construed as incitement. What I would like to prohibit is deliberate attempts at harassment but I am willing to tolerate a lot of mistakes and give the benefit of doubt to people who make mistakes which others construe as harassment. I would tolerate a lot.

Especially when speaking across cultures, a lot of what someone in one culture says can be misinterpreted by people in other cultures. Without thorough multi-cultural review no statement will be sufficient. Until then I would like lots of tolerance and forgiveness in any policy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with what Bluerasberry has said here. However, I think the comment about being "misinterpreted by people in other cultures" can be extended even further when you take into consideration reappropriation. "Culture" isn't only about nationality.

I linked above to the user profile of a Wikipedian who self-identifies as "queer", a term which could still be considered as an insult to some members of the LGBT community, and to other Wikimedians. I have friends amongst the disabled community who regularly call each other "spaz". Such language could easily be misinterpreted as insulting if seen by another member of the Wikimedia community who is not aware of reappropriation, or who, as a member of that minority, disavows reappropriation of a particular phrase or term. Things are not always as cut and dried as they seem. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 12:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is two things we need to have no tolerate against it, 1-Personal attacks (in English WP we have en:WP:NPA but It's not global) 2-hate speeches which is target certain minorities, e.g. when someone says "gays shouldn't be allowed to teach" or "Jews needs to be banned from my country" all are the same. So I think we can do change these lines and make it to something that covers the two things I said above but not to cover what you're implying Amir (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... okay, no tolerance for personal attacks and no tolerance for hate speech, but still I would like to be quick to forgive people who do these things then apologize and promise not to do it again. Some people say hateful things because of ignorance and not because of malice; young people do this especially, and they may not mean it. I do not want to exclude people who can agree to follow the rules after breaking them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to "friendly space policy"[edit]

Wikimedia projects have had a precedent of promoting a "friendly space policy". Probably this resolutions should be summarized in that policy and act as an addendum to it. See policies as follow:

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]