Talk:Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thanks for creating this page. I would like to see this group build out a presence over other projects though, since there is so much happening right now with Structured Data for Commons. I would also like to see a WiR presence in some sort of tooling workgroup. For example, in the Dutch Gendergap workgroup, we discussed an orphan problem we are having. This is where you ask people to add their new articles to a Gendergap worklist, only to realize a year later that that is still the only incoming link for the article. Unfortunately, the orphan tag won't work because there is at least one incoming link, albeit not in mainspace. We need more monitoring tools to be able to check such articles! The work involved in de-orphaning can be quite heavy, especially when the woman is not mentioned at all in her husband's/father's/son's/teacher's/pupil's article. You need to work her in to the article that needs to link to her article. Right now, this is neither an easy task to set up nor a thankful task to do since we still have no way to measure it. I was thinking one way to do this would be to properly link women's items on Wikidata and then build a tool to check # incoming links on Wikidata women items against incoming links on Wikipedia for those women's articles (in any language). It would then be possible to compare e.g. how many incoming links the "Marie Curie" article has in Dutch Wikipedia vs. French Wikipedia and in any Wikipedia vs. her husband, and so on. As far as the goals, therefore, I think a major goal should be to devise new ways to measure progress across projects. I think it is correct that "It is not a goal of this user group to produce encyclopedic content." but I don't think it is correct to add that line to the objectives (no negative language should be in there). The wording is also wrong because this project is all about producing encyclopedic content. I think the goal is to enable the production of encyclopedic content, all the way down the article pipeline to encouraging the production and/or "findability" of reliable sources through outreach. So the goal is not just to encourage and enable Wiki(p/m)edians to create content, but also to encourage and facilitate librarians, journalists, students and anyone else who can help us in our constant search for (1) women's metadata and (2) reliable sources suitable to use as a basis for content. Jane023 (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Jane023 Thank you for your constructive input. Long a desire of my heart is to create another essay of gnoming tasks people can do if they are uncomfortable creating a whole article. As you stated, simply adding links to family/friend's articles is a big step in integration to the encyclopedia. We are about facilitating the production of content, but your point is taken that we need to eliminate the negative language. SusunW (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Notifications[edit]

We plan to notify several Affiliates and other communities regarding our plans to create a UG, and seek their feedback on our draft document, as well as how can we work together. This will include a link to the notification section on their talkpage so that if they respond there, we can easily track their comments, and be responsive. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. EN-WP WikiProject Women in Red --Rosiestep (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. SQ-WP WikiProject Women in Red --Rosiestep (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement on global visibility of women and non-binary genders[edit]

I would like to clarify this area, my apologies if this comes over me being a negative nelly, however unfortunately the positive statements about the WiR project on LGBT+ issues has not been my personal experience.

My experience in private discussion with a leading member of the WiR group was that there was resistance to embracing trans-women issues for Wikipedia and this had caused division and was seen as a distraction to the aims of the project. The advice given to me, formally at that point representing the forming WM-LGBT+ user group, was that it would be best if any work on trans issues were kept separate. I was disturbed and offended by this advice, and perhaps unwisely I decided to avoid making any waves about it as I did not want to damage the good work the WiR project does. Instead I have generally steered clear of the WiR project and instead went on with talking about trans biographies and pushing for gender neutral policies and better trans BLP policies under my own steam.

If viewpoints of members of WiR have shifted over time and based on experience, that's super. However as well as there being statements of LGBT+ inclusivity in this document, I would like to see where the evidence of that is, based on deliverables achieved over the last couple of years, as well as documented talks and discussion. If there is behind the scenes resistance to fully accepting trans-women as part of the proposed WiR user group and accepting that gender neutral and genderqueer issues and improvements projects are also embraced by the proposed user group, then I think there are benefits to having that discussion at the proposal stage.

Thanks -- (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I am truly disturbed that anyone with the project would make comments like that to you. No single member can speak for the WikiProject as we have no hierarchical leadership structure, however, as a founding member, I can emphatically state that from inception,[1] the discussion was held on the talk pages and consensus was reached that the community is trans-inclusive. The original name of the (project XX) was changed to be inclusive. Repeated discussion has reaffirmed that commitment [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Viewpoints of the membership of the Project have remained consistent, we have included trans-women from inception and are committed to inclusiveness. The project has also hosted annual editathons each June to develop articles specifically on the LGBT community. I am not a technician and do not know how to provide those links to you. But possibly one of our other organizers can. SusunW (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking in to it. I note that one of the links you have provided as evidence of trans-inclusivity (I have not looked at them all), feels like the opposite. It was me starting a discussion about better reporting on missing biographies for trans and genderqueer people. There is a manually maintained report of LBT women, used to support WiR which by definition intentionally excludes non-binary identifying people and others, and so over a year ago I made my own more inclusive reports at Missing biographies of nonbinary, trans and intersex people and promoted their use on the LGBT studies noticeboard.
There was no interest from WiR to incorporate these reports, and these Listeria maintained reports are not cross-linked.
If I have missed later developments where WiR has been using different reports to encourage biographies of trans, nonbinary and genderqueer people, I would welcome being corrected or updated.
Clearly if the proposed new User Group does intend to include "non-binary genders" as per the first sentence of the main document, that is a step forward, but I do not believe it represents the current experience of what it is like to be a Wikipedia contributor to WiR (as I am) who has created biographies for non-binary and trans people which remain unrecognised by WiR.
If this is a solid commitment, then I believe more work needs to be done to ensure it is realistic and reaches out to the wider LGBT+ community, such as those with an interest in genderqueer articles or articles about trans-men, to ensure they feel positively welcome to participate in the User Group and we understand how a WiR User Group may work collegiately with the LGBT+ User Group to achieve common goals.
Thanks -- (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Clearly, there is work to be done. As I said above, I am not a technician and building redlists, other than manually editing them is beyond my abilities. The current working lists from the Project indices are inclusive of trans and other non-binary genders WikiData generated, Crowd Sourced. I am honestly baffled that there was "no interest from WiR to incorporate these reports", as I am extremely active in the project and do not recall the lists being offered. I can assure you that I would have jumped at the opportunity and am genuinely sorry that you had that experience. Having written 3 GA on people within the community, I know that the sourcing difficulties are similar, which is something this User Group is being formed to try to address. I also know that identifying "any" notable contemporary or historic minority is difficult and believe that our plan to interface with academics will benefit any non-mainstream group. I am absolutely committed to inclusiveness and finding ways to build bridges, as are the other members of our organizational team. I do not speak for them, but our off-wiki conversations on this issue were resolute regarding inclusion. SusunW (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand your personal commitment, so I am sorry to reiterate, but the Wikidata list you have quoted is the one I created over a year ago as part of LGBT studies and provided a link to in my previous statement. As far as I am aware it has not been used for WiR reporting or related editathons. Unfortunately the Crowd Sourced report by definition excludes non-binary, genderqueer or intersex people, so if any redlinks are listed which fall under those categories then they are there by accident rather than design as editors crowdsourcing the document will be looking at the page title. I certainly would not think of adding a redlink for a non-binary BLP to a document called "LBT Women" as it would be disrespectful to mis-gender the person.
It would be overreaching to claim that these are examples of where WiR has previously met the stated aim of including non-binary people or others, when on analysis the evidence appears to demonstrate the opposite.
Thanks -- (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with what you are saying and reiterate that there is work to be done. I hear what you are saying about the lists and know that any of our organizers would be happy to work with you to improve the language used in the red lists and inclusion of the broadest possible spectrum of people. For example, these statements "This is a list under development of missing articles on women who are (or have been) notable for their activities and work in many different fields. Women included in this list identify as or are lesbian, transgender and/or bisexual. Women who identify as queer, demisexual, or with other identities which often intersect with LGBT, women and feminism may be added to this list" could be improved. We are definitely open to your recommendations on how to do that. SusunW (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll think about proposing a change and rename for the maintained list. However I was not shopping for more work Face-smile.svg.

My more fundamental point remains. There is a tension in the wider community with regard to ensuring that Wikipedias are gender inclusive, especially when thinking of how these issues are ignored, dismissed as political activism or treated as a joke in non-English projects. If the proposed WiR UG is going to tackle all of our projects having a positive and active approach to addressing gender imbalance in their content not just for women and trans-women but visibly for non-binary and others such as trans-men, then those tensions would be worth discussing openly and finding positive ways to address them.

I have said enough here. It would be healthy to see the proposed WiR UG come to its own conclusions about what the strategy and plan for the wider gender agenda will look like, and how the UG will find representative stakeholders to test those plans. -- (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

In light of recent comments on the English Wikipedia, I shall not attempt to have the "LBT Women" report renamed. I feel it would be an unwelcome move and spark an argument. Sorry, WiR does appear to have work to do on hearts and minds, before a proposed WiR UG would in practice be welcoming for addressing gender bias outside of the most common interpretation of "women" by your contributors. The current proposal therefore does appear to be overreaching by including non-binary people. -- (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm so sorry to see that you have not felt that WiR was ready to be inclusive of transgender and non-binary individuals. I'll admit, that as a person who has had to learn a lot about this, I wasn't always as good about it as I should have been. But I learned when it was pointed out to me and I want to keep learning. I want this UG to be extremely intersectional. That's the only way it'll be successful. It was very important to me and others like SusunW to include language that encompassed non binary people. Perhaps it might be good to change the name of the User group so that it's clear that marginalized genders of all kinds are included. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
All: I, too, am still learning. Perhaps the UG name is part of the issue with defining scope. How about something like Wiki Gender Diversity in Red... or something else...? Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I would also be in favor of a name change. I see that the issue we are trying to solve is invisibility: in the media, in the portrayal through history, of reference materials and it bridges gender identity. SusunW (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree, SusunW. This is very much about correcting invisibility and addressing non-binary gender identifying people and transgender people is really important in that goal, too. In a patriarchal system (which most of us live in), they too, are marginalized. Sometimes they are marginalized in different ways from women and their experiences diverge, but I see a natural sort of overlap and kinship in this way. I hope I'm expressing myself properly! I know it's not the same, but I truly believe that women, transgender and non-binary people need to work together. I don't see the point really in working in parallel: it's better if we intersect. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Something along the lines of using the name "Gender Equality User Group" may have wide understandability and be more obviously intended to address gender bias in whatever form it exists.
A change like this would be challenging for many WiR participants and is likely to meet resistance that requires discussion about the pros and cons. Even if a new UG title does not explicitly mention women in the title, it would have the same benefit of primarily continuing the ambition of fixing unintentional male bias, and additionally remain open to actively supporting wider gender issues. As well as turning red-links blue, there are issues of proportionate representation of gender in images, assessing representation in all our organizations, access for funding, representation and gender bias in different Wikipedia cultures, and so on, plus gender issues that are not usually seen as women centric, such as gender hostile environments due to common heteronormativity, or how to improve most editors' natural presumptions of binary gender on Wikipedias where this is fundamentally built into the language they are writing in. -- (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
we have come to consensus on the name change, which we believe makes our objectives more clear. SusunW (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! It is a bold change and a meaningful positive statement of inclusivity. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
invisibility is marginalization, whatever its source. If we are able to gain outside partners to assist us in upping the visibility and available resources, we must target a diverse spectrum or we end up fostering systemic biases. Thank you for your insights. I hope that you will find time to help in some of our initiatives. SusunW (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Why only the EN WikiProject?[edit]

While I realize that the impetus has come from members of the EN project, it looks to me as if the user group would benefit significantly from the involvement of similar WikiProjects covering the other language versions of Wikipedia, as well as improved relationships with them. This would also provide more incentives for Wikimedia to take things more seriously.--Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott We are definitely not focusing only on EN WP. Our sister projects Wikimujeres (Spanish), Les Sans Pages (France), and WikiDonne (Italy) have all been asked for input. Our goals are to make global contacts to improve reference accessibility on LGBT people and women, including any languages in which those sources might be available. SusunW (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
SusunW: By "sister communities" at the very beginning of the presentation, I had understood the communities represented by the other EN wikiprojects related to women. Perhaps it would be better to say "similar wikiprojects in other language versions of Wikipedia" (maybe even with a footnote). I think this approach could be consolidated by inviting key members of the projects in other languages to become active supporters of GDVC.--Ipigott (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott we could also partner with Whose Knowledge for work on Commons if they're interested. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Good suggestion but I think it's up to you and the other organizers.--Ipigott (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

What's up with[edit]

m:WikiWomen's User Group ? Anthere (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Anthere WWUG is organized to encompass supporting all women's activities engaged in the Wiki movement. Our group is focused solely on the overcoming the invisibility issue, lack of available sourcing, lack of media attention, etc. In terms of business, we are like a research and development laboratory, whereas they are like a distribution firm, if that makes it more clear. SusunW (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Anthere, adding to SusunW's comments, in Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex (1949) she said: “It is not women’s inferiority that has determined their historical insignificance; it is their historical insignificance that has doomed them to inferiority.” Our new UG addresses the historical insignificance, and by doing so, provides support for those editors who are working on content gender gap production (en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red). --Rosiestep (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Anthere: I would echo SusunW very strongly. We want very much to be able to provide resources for community members to use. Some of the items we need are inaccessible to members in other parts of the world, or only a few libraries own physical copies. We want to expand the amount of info that people can access when writing articles. (this is just part of the project, but as a librarian, it's what I'm most engaged in. I created the demo library, for example.) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Completely make sense. Thanks for your answers Anthere (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Anthere we have changed the name, as there was a lot of confusion. SusunW (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Facebook group[edit]

I have planned to launch soon a facebook group where I would hope to unite communities members but also external partners interested in the African+Gender gaps. The idea would be to share insights, facts, scientific studies, media reports, new projects or special events that might be of interest to our members. I am myself more interested in the content gap and less interested in the participation gap, so am likely to push in the content direction (which include WiR approach clearly). I am not specifically looking to make it a "women" group, but more a "gender" group. I actually already created the group as a group hosted on the Wiki Loves Women Facebook page. I have been wondering if some of you would be interested in joining it, helping to define/refine and launch it. Would it be something WiR would be interested in participating to ? Anthere (talk)

Sounds like an interesting concept and yes, that is what we are focused on, how can we facilitate greater production of content. Is the group going to be an open group or a closed group? I ask this because lots of people's user names on here are not the same as their names on Facebook, which requires real names and thus might be a problem for some people. I think it would definitely be exactly the type of thing we are interested in. Rosiestep is one of the administrators of our FB page and if we joined as a group, she would need to initiate it. SusunW (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Anthere, I think a FB page where people could share information regarding the wiki movement's content gender gap (and/or editor gender gap if that is their focus) is brilliant. @Jane023 and Victuallers, and I are the admins of the Wiki Women in Red FB page so maybe we could work with you on making this new FB page happen. Its name would need to be generic; something to think about. Also, what about Twitter and Pinterest (Women in Red has different administrators for different social media platforms)? I recommend we think "big picture" and develop a global social media plan. Perhaps a Google Hangout and/or some of us could have a preliminary discussion next week in Cape Town? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
We should probably post all of the existing fb pages somewhere, since each language seems to have one (we have two in Dutch: one closed and one open). It is quite difficult to keep a social presence active as an entity. It takes quite a bit of effort to post something regularly (ask anyone who has been in charge of any of the official fb pages). I think if content is what you are interested in then the current WiR page would be good for this. I don't think this project has decided to have a presence in other projects though. English Wikipedia content is still the focus. The problem in attracting content creators is you basically need to reach them in their own language. Jane023 (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

There are several pages loosely or more tightly connected to the subject with slightly different focus.

So, I know of Wiki Loves Women page
https://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesWomen/
this is the page for the Wiki Loves Women project. So focus is "Women and Africa". I initially rather wanted WLW to be more focus on content, but most participants find it important to also focus on participation.
French English

WikiWomen Collaborative
https://www.facebook.com/WikiWomensCollaborative/
this is a page. Last active a year ago. Seems only English. Goal is bringing women together.

WikiDonne
https://www.facebook.com/WikiDonne/
I think it is similar goal to Collaborative, but in Italian

WikiMujeres
https://www.facebook.com/wikimujeres/
I think same goal as above, but in Spanish

Women in Red
https://www.facebook.com/wikiwomeninred/
Focus on content. English

Les sans pagEs
https://www.facebook.com/sanspages/
In French. Goal similar to Women in Red (so more oriented content, but probably more interested in gender than WiR)

Wikimania women
https://www.facebook.com/groups/247519302260702/
Public group. In English. Limited focus (in time) so hard to really activate.

Wikiwomennepal
https://www.facebook.com/wikiwomennepal/
Actually just discovered it today...

Wikipedia women
https://www.facebook.com/groups/111731472234343/
Closed group. Focus on women as editors.

I may have missed some. I do not read Dutch, so hard to find this one :) Please add to my first draft list. There are also smaller pages related to specific events.

The one I created a couple of weeks ago is linked to Wiki Loves Women. Its name is Mind the Gender Gap
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1634853919903795/?source_id=842121982572145
I'd like its primary focus to be related to gender and gender issues (naturally related to Wikimedia projects...) more than about women issues. I'd like its focus to be on content rather than being on participants. And I'd like it to be a place where we can also invite partners, friends, interested parties, who may not be wikipedians, but who can work with us, interact with us, collaborate with us. And last, of course, I'd prefer it to focus on Africa (but I have a rather lose definition of Africa :))))

I'd like it to be a closed group, mostly to avoid buggers and be able to kick off people who get problematic. But that should not be a confidential group with super tight control of membership because this is not sustainable for volunteer management. So it would be fairly easy to join (but fairly easy to get kicked if needed).

Last, my concept being rather related to Africa, we could have posting in French and English, in a similar way to what we do for Wiki Loves Africa. Arabic fine as well by me, but not understanding it myself :) Anthere (talk)

Virtual Community Event - Gender Equity Report -- Oct 9th at 1555 UTC[edit]

What are the most pressing issues currently facing the Wikimedia movement with respect to advancing gender equity? What strategies are effective for closing the gender gap in content and contributors? What work has already been done? Join us for a community presentation on October 9 to hear how 65 prominent leaders of gender equity projects responded to these and other questions. We'll discuss highlights from the recently published report, Advancing Gender Equity: Conversations with movement leaders, share ways that you can support gender equity projects in your communities, and have space for discussion. For an overview of the project, check out the recent blog post! Event logistics:

  • Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018
  • Time: 1555-1700 UTC (please join 5 minutes before the hour to allow for troubleshooting technical issues)
  • Information about joining the event, along with discussion questions, are posted here.

Hope to see you there! (Sent on behalf of @Alex Wang and Marti Johnson). --Rosiestep (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Learning Quarterly: November 2018[edit]

L&E Newsletter / Volume 5 / Issue 17 / November 2018
Learning Quarterly

Stay tuned
blogs, events
& more!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

2018 Affiliations Committee call for candidates[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee.

Affiliations Committee logo.svg

The Affiliations Committee – the committee responsible for guiding volunteers in establishing Wikimedia chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups – is looking for new members!

The main role of the Affiliations Committee is to guide groups of volunteers that are interested in forming Wikimedia affiliates. We review applications from new groups, answer questions and provide advice about the different Wikimedia affiliation models and processes, review affiliate bylaws for compliance with requirements and best practices, and advise the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on issues connected to chapters, thematic organizations and Wikimedia user groups.

The committee can include up to fifteen members, roughly half of whom are selected every twelve months for staggered two-year terms. Those joining the committee during the current process will serve a two-year term ending in December 2020.

Key skills

Being a part of the Affiliations Committee requires communication with volunteers all over the world, negotiating skills, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to understand legal texts. We look for a healthy mix of different skill sets in our members, including the following key skills and experience:

- Willingness to process applications through a set, perhaps bureaucratic process.
- Readiness to participate in political discussions on the role and future of affiliates, models of affiliation, and similar topics.
- Availability of up to 5 hours per week, and the time to participate in a monthly two-hour voice/video meeting.
- International orientation.
- Fluency in English.
- Ability to work and communicate with other languages and cultures.
- Strong understanding of the structure and work of affiliates and the Wikimedia Foundation.
- Knowledge of different legal systems and experience in community building and organizing are a plus.
- Skills in other languages are a major plus.
- Experience with or in an active affiliate is a major plus.
- Strong track record of effective collaboration (such as evidenced skills at facilitation, mediation, negotiation, and so forth) are a major plus.
- Willingness to use one's real name in committee activities (including contacts with current and potential affiliates) when appropriate.

We are looking for people who are excited by the challenge of empowering volunteers to get organized and form communities that further our mission around the world. In exchange, committee members selected will gain the experience of supporting their world-wide colleagues to develop their communities as well as personal development in guiding organizational development, facilitating affiliate partnerships, and professional communications.

Selection process

As a reflection of our commitment to openness, transparency, and bilateral engagement with the Wikimedia community, the 2018 member selection process will include a public review and comment period. All applications received by the committee will be posted on Meta at Affiliations Committee/Candidates/December 2018, and the community will be invited to provide comments and feedback about each candidate.

At the end of the public comment period, the applications will be voted on by the members of the committee who are not seeking re-election, taking into account comments put forward by the committee's members, advisors, Wikimedia Foundation staff and board liaisons, and the community. A final decision will be made by mid-January 2019, with new members expected to join later that month.

How to apply

If you are interested in joining the committee, please post your application on the nomination page and send an email announcing your application to affcom@lists.wikimedia.org by 31 December 2018. Your application must include the following information:

- Your full name and Wikimedia username
- A statement describing your relevant experience, skills, and motivation for joining the committee.
- Answers to the following three questions:

  1. How do you think affiliates work best together to partner on effective projects and initiatives?
  2. What do you see as the role of affiliates in the Wikimedia movement in the next three years?
  3. What do you feel you will bring to the committee that makes you a uniquely qualified candidate?


If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me and/or the committee as a whole. We are happy to chat or have a phone call with anyone about our work if this helps them decide to apply. Please distribute this call among your networks, and do apply if you are interested!

Best regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 06:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

New Affiliations Committee appointments[edit]

AffCom is excited to share with you the news that the Wikimedia Foundation Board has unanimously approved the changes to the Bylaws during the last Board meeting on January 30, 2019.

This change allows the participation of User Groups in the Affiliate-selected Board seats (ASBS) 2019 process.

To read the Board's announcement, please click here

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Help us make Wikipedia talk pages more accessible to more participants[edit]

Hello!

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As an affiliate, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants, or it is an consultation that would interest your members.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities.

We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for groups that can discuss and report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate, with the user groups that you belong to. You can learn more about the consultation at Mediawiki.org and if you're interested in hosting a group discussion (on-wiki or off-wiki), you can sign up at the participant sign-up group.

If you’d like to participate or if you have any questions, please contact us and let us know. The more people participate from many horizons, the better the outcome will be.

Thank you! Trizek (WMF) 15:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Call for complementary facilitators and more to get the ASBS 2019 process started![edit]

User (13635) - The Noun Project.svg

Hi everyone, hope all is fine with you!

The next weeks will be intense, as affiliates figure out their participation in the process that will soon select 2 people for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Since new Bylaws established that the user groups are for the first time going to be involved in such process, a lot more support than before is certainly going to be necessary, among other things, for big and healthy conversations on the topic. Hence, please encourage members of your group to become a complementary facilitator, or sign up yourself! You can add yourself to the list on Meta or reply to me to flag availability. One person from the facilitators group should soon be selected to liaise with the Foundation Board’s Chair, María Sefidari, on behalf of all affiliates, and it may be wise to also find a deputy for them.

Finally, if you can think of any huge obstacles that would prevent your group from participating to the process (for instance, a language barrier, or lack of good decision-making mechanisms, etc.), please reach out to me directly: it is really important that we hear about them as early as possible. Thank you! Elitre (WMF) 15:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User reporting system consultation[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken.

The success of this project depends on collecting ideas and feedback from people in a variety of different roles in the Wikimedia movement. To this end, there will be a multi-phased consultation where you can participate in ways that you find most comfortable.

Please visit the User reporting system consultation page to learn more about the process, to ask questions, or to offer feedback. You also can sign up to be be a liaison for you group, to translate pages or messages, or to host a discussion group (on or off wiki.)

Please share this message with other people who you think would be interested in this project.

Cheers, SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative 14:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Update on the Affiliate-selected Board seats 2019 process[edit]

Hi all,

The Election Facilitators met on Friday, April 5. We finalized the resolution, which is now frozen. The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation will be asked to approve the resolution.

We have made two small changes to be more inclusive. We extended the date for compliance with AffCom reporting and being in good standing to May 7 to allow time for as many Affiliates as possible to be current with these requirements. The Election Facilitators adjusted the language in case a quorum is not met during the election.

On the talk page of the resolution one issue was raised. The issue looks like to be about a possible candidate. Affiliates will have ample time to discuss the merits of candidates during nomination time, screening time, and they can cast their votes on candidates. The Election Facilitators didn't see the necessity for this change, and left the resolution on this point unchanged.

The Election Facilitators will be Abhinav Srivastava, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Ad Huikeshoven, Neal McBurnett and Alessandro Marchetti. We will welcome more volunteers to assist us in this process, to reach out to the diversity in language and gender in our communities, and do so in an advisory role.

The nomination period opens on April 15. We are going to prepare nomination pages on Meta. You can expect a call for nominations. There is a draft call, including a candidates' profile section with non-binding guidelines about experience and characteristics for nominees. You are welcome to add your insights, or discuss on the talk page.

Erica Litrenta (WMF staff) supports us in this process. She will reach out to all affiliates through mail and other channels to make sure we are up to date with (user)name and contact details of your primary contact.

On behalf of the Election Facilitators, Ad Huikeshoven 10:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Update about the Affiliate-selected Board seats process 2019[edit]

ASBS 2019.pdf

Hello everyone!

  • The Resolution has been approved by the Board of Trustees;
  • Nominations phase is now open, from April 15 00:00 UTC to April 30 23:59 UTC. See the Call for Candidates and Nominations pages;
    • Community members may ask questions of the candidates;
  • Your main representative has just received an email to confirm that they are indeed the primary contact and will perform official actions on behalf of your group (such as endorsing candidates and then voting). Some groups also need to verify their eligibility status in due time, as explained in the email;
  • New content is available to spread awareness around the process - the infographic on this page has clickable links and can be translated, and a primer is available, that we hope will be particularly helpful to those new to such a process;
  • Finally, you are welcome to help with translations! Pick one page from the ASBS category and, in the next couple of weeks, please consider translating profiles of the candidates in particular.

Thanks for your attention! The Facilitators for ASBS 2019, 07:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Affiliate-selected Board seats 2019 process: your representative[edit]

Nuvola apps important.png

Hello. The name of the only person who will vote on behalf of this group to select the next two Board members is now at m:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019/Eligible entities. Please contact me directly as soon as possible if you need any kind of corrections there. There's only a few hours left to endorse candidates, and only the official voter can do that. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that you can make a difference with the necessary translations.

Appreciate your attention and your support so far! Thank you! Elitre (WMF) and Facilitators of ASBS 2019, 12:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming 2019 Affiliate-selected trustee position on the Board of Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

Greetings Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group,

My name is Gerald Shields, also known as user:Geraldshields11. I am asking for your top rank vote for me in the election for one of two open trustee positions on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

I am asking for your vote to help support emerging communities and promote an inclusive education environment on all wiki projects. Also, I plan to promote various other issues as I mention in my statement and answers to various questions. I ask that you show your support for the issues that need to be address by voting for me as one of your preferences.

My candidacy information page is Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019/Nominations/Gerald Shields on Meta or can be found at Gerald Shields candidate. I have responded to the “Questions for all candidates - Questions for this individual candidate that do not apply to other candidates”. My answers give more details on why your affiliate should vote for me.

Thank you for your time, discussion, and consideration of my candidacy. I appreciate it.

My best regards,

Gerald Shields

Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your organization's vote in the 2019 trustee election. With your organizations', Igbo's, and AfroCrowds' votes, I was been able to score better than expected. I look forward to working with the trustees. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Introducing Wikimedia Space: A platform for movement news and organizations[edit]

Hi Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group,
I’m writing to let you know that the Community Engagement department [1]at the Wikimedia Foundation is launching a new platform, Wikimedia Space. Here, you will find stories for and by contributors to the Wikimedia movement, and a space for discussions of different topics.

We know that finding information about Wikimedia activities and processes is very complicated, which makes the learning curve to enter our movement and be successful afterwards, really steep. By centralizing community stories and conversations in one shared space, we believe we are facilitating access and discoverability of topics across the movement, improving, in turn, connections among Wikimedians.

As an affiliated organization to the Wikimedia Foundation, we hope that you can share this platform with your local community, and we count on you to encourage them to add their voices. If you’d like to contribute stories, and overall, participate in the discussion section, please read our blogging guidelines and our code of conduct and join the conversation. Find more information about the project on its page on Meta.

Looking forward to seeing you at Wikimedia Space,
María Cruz, Communications and Outreach Manager, Wikimedia Foundation.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Community survey[edit]

FYI, please take a look at the community health survey. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Introducing Wikimedia Diary: A memory book (notebook) for all[edit]

Wikipedia Education Globe 1.png Wikimedia Diary
Hello Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group, I wanna share you about Wikimedia Diary, a public memory book (notebook) in which Wikimedians from all over the world are free to write any worth noting event/activities/experiences by them or community in this Wiki world. It is a more casual place to write about what one is up to.

As we all know, a diary is a book in which diarist keeps a daily record of events and experiences. Likewise, the basic idea of Wikimedia Diary is that we do many activities here in wiki world which we are proud of, but unfortunately it became only the history anytime. So, It is meant to record those activities on the happened date with a signature (~~~~) which is worth noting, and letting fellow Wikimedians know about what inspirational you've did. It would motivate users from all around the world to keep on cool activities and publish a note. I hope you share your activities with all of us on the page, and please let your friends know about Wikimedia Diary. Also, your feedback is welcome on the discussion page. Thank you!
Kind regards,
Tulsi Bhagat, Initiator of Wikimedia Diary, Wikimedia movement communications group.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)