Jump to content

Talk:Wikimania 2015 bids

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 10 years ago by CT Cooper in topic Making the page clearer

City descs and Wikivoyage[edit]

I have taken a look on Cape Town's page here and what i see is a lot of info about transport, ho(s)tels, climate and so on. Isn't it better to improve revalent Wikivoyage articles and just provide remarkable links to them? Sure info that is about conference itself shall be on pages here. --Base (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

LGBT safety rating for Wikimania bids[edit]

I have put together the following comparison table for the current bid locations. I am happy to amend the table based on information from alternative internationally recognized sources. I would encourage the jury to reject any location under the "personal safety of participants" criteria, where LGBT Wikimedians are either advised not to travel by their own Foreign Office, or where they would be put at unnecessary risk just by being identified or thought to be LGBT, compared to alternative locations. -- (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately the table has been removed from this discussion (diff), but can be read at User:Fæ/sandboxG. -- (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

LGBT safety in Indonesia[edit]

Indonesia does not reject entry on the basis of HIV status.([1][2] and the source you cite in the table.) Would you consider amending the information in the table? Bali is a very friendly, safe and popular destination for LGBT tourists - I'm unaware of any evidence of specific increased risk to LGBT travelers, and it is a repeat destination for many of my gay friends. What is your evidence for the "Poor" rating under "Social"? [3] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have added the usembassy.gov source you quoted, which seems suitably independent. I modified the wording to make it clear that HIV tests currently apply to work visas. There are plenty of articles explaining why the religiously conservative law in Indonesia (based on Sharia Law) is a risk for LGBT people[4] and as LGBT identity is treated as a disease and against the majority religious morality, the laws for equality do provide any rights for LGBT people. Wikimania needs to be open to groups such as LGBT to be free to hold and advertize LGBT meetings and for Wikimedians to socialize in public without having to pretend that none of our members is LGBT to be safe from harassment or prosecution for immorality. I will take a look later today for better independent sources for the level of social acceptance or safety of LGBT tourists, as most of the easier ones to find are lobbying for a single point of view or may be biased in order to promote tourism. -- (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Update—Further reading on the disrupted ILGA conference in 2010 (see Homophobia on the Rise) and advice such as this on worldrainbowhotels who are motivated to promote destinations for travel are not encouraging. These sources repeat the fact that LGBT identity is a mental handicap and not protected under the law in Indonesia. Further, survey data reported by The Jakata Post shows that social intolerance towards homosexuality significantly increased between 2005 to 2012. Pew surveys in 2013 and 2007 put Indonesia as more opposed to homosexuality than Pakistan or Malaysia (where homosexuality is illegal) with 97% of Indonesians opposed to same-sex relationships.[5] I believe the rating in the table of "poor" remains justified, though I have yet to find any data relating to homophobic attacks in Indonesia or Bali, however as the police or the government would be unlikely to provide any reports on attacks as homophobic harassment, I doubt that we will be able to find any published statistics. -- (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure that you right about Bali. First, Bali is a very different place from the rest of the country. It is visited by lots of foreign tourists. Second, the HIV testing requirement is only for teachers working in the country. Inconsistent visa procedures is an issue in many countries. Ruslik (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Could you supply a source for HIV tests only being required for teachers? It appears as part of the medical test requirement at usembassy.gov.
Yes Bali is a well known tourist destination, however I have seen no independent evidence that the police offer protection against LGBT harassment, nor have I found any recognized survey reports showing social attitudes towards LGBT people is significantly different to other parts of Indonesia. -- (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
HIVTravel, whom I linked above, say "Entry regulations: No restrictions for people with HIV/AIDS. Residence regulations: HIV test required for work visa for teachers working in the country from Education Department. Additional information: The restrictions apply only for foreign teachers working in the country."
The US Embassy page you linked to which says a positive HIV test result "will mean that you will not be eligible to receive a visa" refers to an immigrant (not visitor) visa to the USA (not Indonesia).
Yes, there is a lot that could be improved about the environment and law in Indonesia regarding LGBT rights, but that is a different issue. If you would like Wikimania to boycott all jurisdictions with discriminatory social or legislative environments, propose it. Here, you are advising people about their safety.
I do think something like this is a good idea - but the information you give needs to be clear (your summaries and headings are very vague and ambiguous and prone to misreading) and verified by reliable sources. Perhaps a paragraph or two of prose for each destination, rather than a table? I have deleted your table for now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am happy to amend the table based on information from alternative internationally recognized sources. Hivtravel.org is run by the International AIDS Society and was a link provided in the table before you blanked it from this discussion. Based on your comment I amended the text with "some" to make the point more clearly.
I have no intention of proposing that "Wikimania to boycott all jurisdictions with discriminatory social or legislative environments", it would be unlikely to get anywhere as an unrealistic tangent. The criteria the Wikimania jury are using has been established and the specific one this relates to was quoted in the first paragraph of this thread.
Please do not rewrite my signed comments on meta without my permission. I disagree with blanking the table here, I consider it as being under development while it is under discussion. If you do not allow it to be displayed in this thread as part of discussion, then this reduces our chances of reaching a credible community consensus that can support the jury's decision. -- (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
You can see [6] and [7]. I must repeat that your characterization of Bali is unfair. Ruslik (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am aware of the websites that exist to promote tourism in Bali, and my link above to http://www.worldrainbowhotels.com was one tourist site that provided a less happy representation. Promotional websites are not unbiased sources and I have avoided adding them as I do not believe it would be reasonable for the Wikimania jury to reach an opinion based on promotional sources regardless of their viewpoint. If you can find an independent, international and more neutral source, I would be happy to add it to the table and reconsider the current summary. I would be particularly interested if you can track down credible statistics for LGBT social acceptance in Bali as opposed to the whole of Indonesia. The statistics I have relied on to date are not this specific.
Anyway, if the table is going to be censored or there cannot be an open or frank consensus process on meta about the evidence for LGBT safety in Indonesia, I don't see much point in investing a lot of my unpaid volunteer time in it. I can write up my report for the jury and email it to them later in the year based on closed email discussion that just involves fewer Wikimedians. -- (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
As this bid was withdrawn, I have removed the row for it from the comparison table. -- (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

LGBT safety in Dar es Salaam[edit]

Hey, (talk)it seems that my bid is among of moved, yes I mean dar es salaam and if yes do you think whats wrong with it and if not you can you help me to know who did that please help help me to know about it. Manawa|Talk Education First, 17:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dar es Salaam was only stricken from Template:Wikimania 2015-bids. Since Ellie hasn't removed it from Wikimania 2015 bids, and the coordinator of the bid still thinks it's in, I'm presuming this was a mistake and have restored it. If Dar es Salaam is disqualified, then a clear statement from the jury, with all appropriate pages updated, would be appreciated to prevent any confusion. CT Cooper · talk 17:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
CT Cooper · talk, in that way, am telling you nothing wikimedia can do to gronup if that is a stuation me I don't care because bidding to wikimania is not my permanent job am just trying to support wikimedia to grow in africa especially in my country and am not thinking the way you are thinking. iven your blaims to the coordinater for not removing our bid tell her to go ahead and if there is a mistake of selection that was to apoint E. Young to be coordinator, she is not coperative. Last nothing can change our mind

Manawa|Talk Education First, 23:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Francis Kaswahili, from the internationally recognized sources I have found so far, Tanzania would not be a safe place for LGBT Wikimedians to take part in a conference. Homosexual acts are a crime with prison sentences of 30 years to life. There are lengthy possible prison sentences for "gross indecency" where there may have been no physical contact. In a country with these laws and homosexuality being an extreme social taboo topic, it would be unwise for the LGBT Wikimedians group to have a meeting or to promote an LGBT event.
It would be helpful if you could tackle this issue in your bid, preferably linking to recent official advice. You may find LGBT Voice in Dar es Salaam a useful contact for up to date information to support your bid. -- (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
(talk), If do you think thst LGBT is one of condition to host wikimania and to be likely forcing people to discuss then your wrong as I said last year that, it is privacy matter am sory for that, you can support me with no condition. Manawa|Talk Education First, 00:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Francis, please do take on my suggestion to address the safety of LGBT Wikimedians in your bid. This is not an odd or new requirement. All Wikimania Conferences have safely held LGBT social events and meetings as part of its schedule. These meetings have never been held in secret, and Wikimedia should be able to welcome LGBT Wikimedians in the host country to join us without fearing that they would suffer harassment or imprisonment were they the later the target of allegations of being homosexuals. You have to appreciate that being LGBT is not something that attendees of our conference can or should be asked to keep private. -- (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
As this bid appears to have been disqualified, I have removed it from the comparison table. -- (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Francis Kaswahili: I'm sorry, I don't know what your trying to say to me. I'm only an observer in these affairs – I don't work for the Wikimedia Foundation, nor am I part of the jury. It's unfortunate there was initially a lack of proper communication to the community on the disqualification of this bid. Even now, it would be helpful to know why Dar es Salaam was disqualified. Was it for LGBT safety or for some other reason? CT Cooper · talk 00:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Worry not CT Cooper · talk My problem is how other Wikimedian colleagues ignored Africa especially where competition is against developing wikimedian community. Either in Africa we have active users not exceeding 70 I remember last CT Cooper · talk you helped to develop our bid either am telling all those think that I like to be alone but that is estuation it my believes may be if we get a chance of accommodating of experienced Wikimedian can help to convince a number of people to become users Manawa|Talk Education First,15:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Two of the three remaining bids are within Africa, one being in Tunisia and the other in South Africa. Since it's unlikely the decision to disqualify Dar es Salaam will be reversed, I would suggest giving your support to one or both of these two bids if you want Africa to host the next Wikimania. CT Cooper · talk 17:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
To understand why this bid was disqualified you only need to look at their page. It does not seem to be ready for any competition. Ruslik (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
People said the same thing with the Tanzania bid last year and it was allowed to proceed. In any case, I would prefer a definite answer from the jury or the WMF on why the bid was disqualified. CT Cooper · talk 23:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

LGBT safety in Esino Lario, Italy[edit]

As this bid has been withdrawn, I have removed the row for it from the comparison table. -- (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not a withdrawn --> Wikimania Esino Lario moved to 2016[edit]

I think it is useful to clarify. Wikimania Esino Lario was never withdrawn. Our bid was moved to 2016, since we applied directly in 2014 for 2016. Here you find an explanation of why applying in 2014 for 2016 (with related discussion) and here are the questions we asked the jury. --iopensa (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Making the page clearer[edit]

I've taken the liberty of updating this page since the jury announcement that Mexico City is the winning bid, pending WMF vetting. Information on the page was a little all over the place. Bali was apparently considered by the jury, making it an official bid, but was disqualified along with Dar es Salaam for not being complete enough, as per this mailing list message. Yet Esino Lario was marked as an official bid despite not actually being submitted for 2015, per below. To make things easier, I have removed the distinction between official and unofficial bids for now. If someone wants to reinstate it, the distinction between the two needs to be made clearer. I've also updated Template:Wikimania 2015-bids and improved Template:Wikimania 2014-bids, though as some point someone should probably go through all the past bidding pages and give them a tidy-up in order to make them suitable for historical viewing. CT Cooper · talk 16:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply