Talk:Wikimedia LGBT+

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Wikimedia LGBT)
Jump to: navigation, search
Portal Activities Business History Participants & Supporters Privacy Resources Discussion


Wikimedia Conference 2017[edit]

Wikimedia Conference logo.png

Wikimedia Conference, the annual meeting of all Wikimedia organizations (Wikimedia chapters, thematic organizations, user groups, and the Wikimedia Foundation), will take place in Berlin from March 31 to April 2, 2017. Registration opened on Friday, November 18, 2016 and closes on Sunday, January 8, 2017, which is just around the corner. WMLGBT+ is eligible to send one delegate.

I've had the pleasure of attending the past two years, and I've tried my best to represent this affiliate by sharing about our goals and activities, especially Wiki Loves Pride. I enjoy meeting affiliate leaders from around the globe, and I have some ideas for a survey I'd like willing attendees to take in order for us to have a better understanding of LGBT-related activities within the Wikimedia movement, but at the same time I want to give other WMLGBT+ supporters opportunities to represent our group and learn from peers.

If you are curious, please see the conference details linked throughout this message and note your interest here as soon as possible. With deadlines approaching, we'll need to make decisions sooner than later. I hope project participants will help disseminate this invitation and opportunity via other channels. Thanks! -Another Believer (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  • It would be nice to have a few possible candidates and we only have a few weeks to decide. I'll throw my hat in, mostly because I have not gone to any meetings since Wikimania 2014 and the LGBT+ photograph prize competition will hopefully have concluded just before despite its slow start, so that will be an experience to share. Plus I'm sure that a few of the affiliates will be interested in my GLAM related Commons projects, which manage to work without any funding, and that could be part of a wider discussion about better bots and perhaps how best to engage with long term independent volunteers. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not a candidate for attending this, but would like to help with candidate recruitment and the discussion process. I just sent an email to the wiki LGBT mailing list and will pass word around for people to participate. I wish to propose some minimal criteria for an ideal candidate:
    • Has developed LGBT+ content on a Wikimedia project in the past, however modestly
    • Has plans to organize a wiki LGBT+ outreach project or event in the next year, however modest
    • Has some experience with any part of the Wikimedia governance system, including participation as casual as joining an online or in-person program presented by any registered Wikimedia affiliate organization. I want this because the Wikimedia Conference is an event which features the discussion of managing outreach programs.
Thanks for the interest that anyone has. After we have a slate of candidates the discussion and selection process for choosing a representative will happen here. I propose that nominations for candidates be accepted until Wednesday 14 December, and that we anticipate candidate selection by Wednesday 28 December. From there the representative would register as soon as possible, and I would like to see the registration publicly posted by Wednesday 4 January in advance of the 8 January deadline. If anyone would propose an alternate schedule then speak up. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
An update - I am hoping to get a word from de:Wikipedia:Jungwikipedianer, which is an organization advocating for young Wikipedians in Germany and beyond. This group has been especially LGBT+ friendly. I asked about getting someone from that group to post here. It would be nice to have their input as they have made LGBT+ inclusivity a priority.
I do not know of a clever way to be more transparent, but I have asked around in other groups about other people participating in this process. I wish to avoid naming names of either individuals or groups, but I want to share that I am reaching out. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to participate in the Wikimedia Conference as a LGBT+ represente. My user name in the Wikimedia projects is User:Freddy2001 and I started contributing in 2012. My main projects are Wikimedia Commons and the German Wikipedia, where I am member of the Arbitration Committee. I am member of the German "Jungwikipedianer", a community of about 40 young editors who are living all across german speaking countries. For this community, I have organisated some events and meetups; I could also imagine, that I can do this for a LGBT+ meetup too. I attended lots of Wikimedia events, like for instance some WikiCons in Germany, the Wikimedia Conferentie Nederland, where I hold talks about issues of young editors in the community or how to engage new editors to this project. On the Wikimania in Esino Lario, I attended my first Wikimedia LGBT+ meetup. Currently, I try to revive the trans portal in the German Wikipedia and started already with some translations of trans related articles. -- Freddy2001 talk 20:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Nominations closed. Next to choose from the three candidates - I will write you all soon. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Representatives[edit]

Update: After some discussion, User:Fæ and User:Freddy2001 will be representing our user group at the upcoming conference. I understand both have registered and will keep us updated about their work on behalf of WMLGBT+. -Another Believer (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note that we should probably have these conversations on the mailing list as well. I recognize a note was sent initially, but I think things tend to get lost in inboxes if at least one reminder is not also sent as well. I do not think many folks are actively monitoring this page, and I heard from a few folks they were surprised this happened without them knowing about it. Their first heads up was the news being relayed on WikiCon page. I encourage us to utilize all our communications methods, as this has happened before. Given the loose structure of the group, and the lack of any formal structure/communications, I think it is wise to cast a wide net when "deciding things on behalf of the group" as was done here and has been done recently with grants. Not a complaint or major concern, just a friendly reminder. For what it's worth, as much as I adore Fæ, I think given the scope of this year's conference, we could have done a much better job finding some diverse voices to send. ;) Hopefully a bit more communications effort on that in the future will help increase those chances. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 17:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Varnent: Could you expand on your 'some diverse voices' point, and explain which past grants you are referring to that made decisions on behalf of the WM-LGBT+ user group without casting a wide net? Without context it is almost impossible to know what must improve and why. Freddy2001 and myself bring our experience from very different parts of the LGBT+ community and this was part of our decision making of who to put forward, so the criticism seems odd. Thanks -- (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@: I never mentioned Freddy2001 and have no concerns there. :) However, let's be serious here. As a white gay man, I am many things, but diverse within a LGBT group is not one of them. ;) This user group has consistently sent gay men to this event. I think those selections have made a lot of sense, but if we are changing who goes, I think sending someone who has previously attended, and does not change the makeup of our representation, is a miss. Again, I adore you as a friend, but I think as a representative of this group, for the movement strategy track, I personally believe a more diverse choice would have been better. :) Regarding past grants, the only grant I am aware of is the photo project on Commons, which I think was a great effort, but I know caught some people by surprise. As I said on the mailing list, I encourage people to engage and share their thoughts as well, but I also recognize many user groups struggle with communicating widely to its audience. I think that these were surprises to people are suggestions that we need to all do better, perhaps creating a system of notifications via MassMessage to talk pages, or regular meetings of some type - not sure what the best solution is. If there were organized and recognized leadership, I think it would be different, but absent that, we are depend on making decisions via group consensus, and when that is the process, people being surprised by outcomes or "decisions" is not necessarily a good outcome for us long-term - regardless of how good those outcomes or decisions might be. Also, I want to be absolutely clear, this is my personal opinion and not in ANY way a reflection of anything related to others - including WMF - just in case that does not go without being said. ;) --Varnent (talk)(COI) 19:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a bit clearer. A couple of clarifications you may find useful to report back to whomever is raising these points:
  • We are not sending any white gay men. One of our two representatives identifies as a gay man.
  • Freddy2001 has never been to a WMCON before. The last time I went to a WMCON was, I think, in 2012, that's a 5 year gap and I was not representing WM-LGBT+ as it we did not exist back then, so the fact is that neither of us has represented WM-LGBT+ at WMCON.
  • The grant you are referring to is the global $600 LGBT+ FP prize competition, it's not too late to make comments. The proposal was flagged up on the LGBT+ mailing list back in June 2016 and was commented on. The competition has not been launched. In fact the money has yet to be made available, and the intent is to notify 36 different projects in advance of the agreeing the notice to promote the competition. I would have preferred it if the grant could have officially been under the WM-LGBT+ umbrella, but the only option currently available with the WMF's systems is an individual grant, meaning that I take sole responsibility for the money.
Thanks -- (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As I said, it is unfortunate that more people were not nominated to attend. I think that indicates we should step up our efforts to facilitate more discussion in the future. Also, as I have said before, I have no concerns regarding Freddy2001 - who as I understand it is filling the general representation slot. My concern is that you have attended WMCon before, in other capacities sure, but perhaps a better person would have been someone who has not been before. I recognize no one like that came forward, but that does not change my opinion that it would have been a better fit for the movement strategy slot. :) --Varnent (talk)(COI) 20:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, there is definitely no harm in starting these discussions earlier. I thought I was getting the ball rolling in time by posting a reminder back in November, but we can start this conversation even earlier next time. Note: I'm not sure if plans are set in stone for the upcoming Wikimedia Diversity Conference, but I started a discussion for that event, which won't take place until the Fall, below. Thanks, -Another Believer (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) @Varnent: Thanks for your thoughts and the reminder. WMLGBT+ members were informed about the upcoming conference here and on the mailing list, and only three people (including myself) expressed interest in attending. Each of us expressed why we hoped to attend, both online and offline, and had to decide who would represent our group (first, with only one invitation, then again once an additional invitation was extended to WMLGBT+). I thank User:Bluerasberry for the reminders and just a bit of facilitation in order to keep the conversation going, so we could get attendees registered in time. Since I have attended the conference twice, I wanted to give others the opportunity to represent our group, and I think folks had enough time to express their interest in attending or voice concern about those who volunteered. I acknowledge the importance of diverse representation, but also recognize some limitations when only three people (two of whom are gay men) raise their hands. I share this just to be transparent about how decisions were made. -Another Believer (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Varnent, it's strange to read that after 5 years of not going to WMCON, and never representing WM-LGBT+ before, I'm perceived by someone(s) as going too often. Sorry, that does not add up as a logical reason for me to withdraw. If there are real reasons why I should personally never represent WM-LGBT+ in the future or should never be invited to WMCON, even if they are purely political, you'll need to lay them out more clearly than this. Thanks -- (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@: Where did I say you go too often? I always enjoy these engagements with you where you twist words, but I've grown wary of them over the years my friend. You need new tactics. I said it would be better if someone that has not yet been had this opportunity. Do you disagree? As to your list of past sins, they are not for me to catalog, but I am confident you know yourself what they are. What you choose to do with that information is not up for me to decide. ;) If you believe you are the best candidate for this role, I respect that, does not mean I have to personally agree with it. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 20:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just going by your words. I'd rather not get drawn into your comments about my sins, or you being a friend, so let's just leave this as we disagree, as there are precious few measurable facts being presented to support your view that I should not be going to WMCON. No doubt we could talk about this at WMCON, but I'd much rather spend my time there productively. Thanks -- (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
You dispute the facts that we have primarily sent gay men from Europe/US in the past, that you are a gay man from Europe/US, that it is a shame only three nominees came forward, that we could do better work on communications, and that you have attended the conference before? Each of those seems pretty easy to measure, and I apologize that you felt there were not enough of them to support my view. Out of personal curiosity - which of those facts which I presented are you disputing and so I know for the future, what is your preferred minimum fact count? ;) --Varnent (talk)(COI) 21:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll let others reply if they wish. I have already addressed the original points and see no benefit in writing further in the light of the personal comments you have made. -- (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Varnent: I think you've made your points. If there are others who share similar concerns, now would be the time to say so. Another Believer (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@ and Freddy2001: Looking forward to your reports from the conference! Enjoy. -Another Believer (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Freddy2001 and me have taken notes we went along, which is great to prompt our memories. It may take another day or two to write them up, make allowances for school work! I learned a lot and simply having LGBT+ user group representatives visibly at the conference meant that it was more easily used as an illustration in diversity related discussion. I had plenty of enquiries about how the group worked, whether we had physical meetings and folks sharing their experiences of LGBT+ related events and issues. One early impact has resulted from my detailed discussions on the state of trans articles and policies in the German Wikipedia (I was really surprised, but there'll be more on that later!) as a question we raised on Women in Red has resulted in a healthy discussion and a new live list of wanted trans articles, including trans men and genderqueer, which takes advantage of Wikidata, see en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Trans women. -- (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@ and Freddy2001: When either of you draft reports, can you add content and/or links to our ongoing annual report for the user group? There is a draft page here: Wikimedia LGBT+/2016. Updating this page throughout the year means we don't have to scramble to remember our collective activities at the end of the year. Thanks! -Another Believer (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll plan on putting my report in a sub-page and it can be a link in that report, and probably a transclusion here for simplicity. -- (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Fæ. My bad, this belongs at Wikimedia LGBT+/2017, which I just created. I've moved your comment there. Thanks again! -Another Believer (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Outcomes[edit]

One outcome of the Wikimedia Conference is a proposal to default to gender-neutral language. Thanks @:

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft policy at c:Commons:Use of gender neutral language
Update now an official policy! -- (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Another now is:

Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The longer running discussions about lists of missing articles for genderqueer, trans and intersex people, a conversation started at WMCON2017, has now resulted in some useful reports:

-- (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

WMCON2017 LGBT+ user group representative reports[edit]

Wikimedia Conference 2017, WMLGBT+ representative report from Fæ[edit]

Thursday late afternoon, 30 March 2017
  1. Set up logistics of having a Commons session to feed into strategy workshops, which seemed a gap in the strategy track of conference planning.
  2. Informal discussions over dinner with various representatives, Serbia, Norway, WMF research, Mexico. Interesting informal discussion of the issue of 'forgotten histories' and whether oral histories, such as exist for LGBT+ history, should be encouraged as part of Wikimedia's mission to collect the sum of human knowledge.
Friday
Fæ (Walking Dead teeshirt) and others in a strategy break-out.
  1. Reached out to the Commons Village pump for more materials for a session and updated the conference email list. The session proved popular, and covered a range of strategic issues for Commons with a view of a future Commons in 15 years, see Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Commons_in-person_discussion_at_the_Wikimedia_Conference.
  2. Arranged LGBT+ user group meetup. Due to conflicts with many thematic meetings in the same window, this ended up being very late, 9.30 pm, so did not work out.
  3. Lots of smaller discussions where the LGBT+ user group was part of the background, such as discussion with WM Norway chair.
Saturday
Diversity and Inclusion - "Everybody feels welcome and safe", part of the strategic stream discussions on Sunday.
  1. Ran two LGBT related workshop sessions - "Lost History" and "Supporting Illegal or Persecuted Minorities". These were later emailed in to the strategic process.The basis of these sessions were the absence of reliable sources for LGBT+ related events in countries before decriminalization, and the difficulties in supporting contributions on LGBT+ topics within countries with no 'progressive' policies, remain unresolved for Wikipedia projects.
  2. Discussion with Jane Darnell on relationship between trans and GenderGap. Jane suggested exploring a SPARQL wikidata query for Women in Red sub list for trans people based on WikiData. Among ideas for better management of wiki-cultures, the importance of the word, and concept, of 'respectful' treatment of living people. Approached the Women in Red project on-wiki for more information. This later worked out, and is a nice outcome on the English Wikipedia for lists of trans, intersex and genderqueer missing biographies.
  3. Informal review with Ting Chen about the WMF harassment strategy and the separate issue peculiar to German Wikipedia culture, being a reason for LGBT+ related policies being stale.
  4. Discussion with the new user group for Sri Lanka, they have had few events so far and are very small. They were unaware of the legal issues for LGBT+ people in their country, homosexuality remaining a criminal act, but were very aware of the LGBT+ attacks in Bangladesh. Later in the weekend I suggested that approaching the Colombo Pride organizers might be a good source of interesting photographs.
  5. Discussion with the Nepal user group representative revealed that they had attempted to have an LGBT+ editathon but there was a lack of interest from the Blue Diamond Society. Unsure what lessons to learn, though it may help if past case studies of member's editathons or photography releases have helped LGBT+ related organizations improve the quality of their presence on Wikipedia or elsewhere.
  6. At the party, discussion with AfroCrowd http://www.afrocrowd.org, interesting to consider possible parallels between running editathons by black people for black people, and other minorities groups, where knowing everyone in the room is one of us, may make a real difference to the safe space.
  7. Discussed the benefits of a LGBT+ user group with no bureaucracy with board members of two long term European chapters.
Sunday
Finally a chance to see more of Berlin after the conference, on Martin Rulsch's quirky walking tour.
  1. Informal but intense discussion with the two reps from Wikimedia Taiwan, creating interest in the possibility of doing more to document the transition of the country to legalizing same-sex marriage, using cases of photography drives to capture the lobbying and first marriages. This was followed up after the conference (using Telegram), with interest on how good quality trans and genderqueer free education materials may be better supported by Wiki Education.
  2. Creating the statement on Diversity and Inclusion resulted in a top level strategic goal of 'Everybody feels welcome and safe'. This avoids complexity of lists in a diversity statement and makes a warm approach for 2030. The example of safety and feeling welcome for LGBT+ users was a well used case example during the discussions.
  3. Arranged an interesting LGBT+ related interview, which is currently planned for the WMF blog, this is under informal press embargo, pending agreeing format and a final release.
  4. Inspired by several lengthy discussions in person with Freddy2001, gave me a new insight into the perception of issues with the systems and cultures on different language Wikipedias. As a result a nice outcome has been a proposal for gender-neutral language for policies on Wikimedia Commons, and an on-going RfC for the same on the English Wikipedia. Other languages are highly likely to be more technically problematic where there are no non-gendered alternative terms or pronouns, and no potentially widely acceptable solutions.
  5. An unexpected late outcome has been the result of seeing how so many users took advantage of a Telegram group during the conference. We have now set up a Telegram LGBT+ group, and added this to the LGBT+ communications panel navigation bar on Meta. Please join in by clicking the link and downloading the free and non commercial mobile phone app. Face-smile.svg

-- (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Conference 2017, WMLGBT+ representative report from Freddy2001[edit]

Thursday afternoon, 30 March 2017
  1. After my arrival in Berlin, I attended one of the latest sessions of the Leaning Days, which was about making decisions together. In this session, I learned when which tool fits best for finding a solution together in a specific situation.
  2. Discussions and got to know with other participants of the conference at dinner.
Friday, 31 March 2017
  1. Start together of the WMCON.
  2. Attended a track about requesting grants at Wikimedia Foundation.
  3. Some conversations about our user group, one question which was asked very often was how we can accomplish the difficulties of a non-local user group: The language and cultural barriers between the members as well as the time difference which makes only asynchronous communication possible.
  4. Discussion about a photo project of WMSE where they worked only with LGBT models. One outcome of the project was for example the image in article ‘Arm’ on the english wikipedia, but also in LGBT related articles like ‘Breast binding’. They could imagine to engage in more projects like this.
  5. Some discussions at lunch about small communities, which do have LGBT editors, but no project for working on articles.
  6. Attended a track about how to Create and manage Projects. Outcomes of this track: The most important points are to assign the roles in the project, to have a time plan and a to-do list.
  7. Attended a track about the Wikimedia blog and social media accounts. (Who is actually responsible for our facebook page?) Outcomes of this track: Post ¼ stuff that you need for your projects and ¾ stuff that makes your page interesting and draws attention to your projects.
Saturday, 1 April 2017
  1. Arranged a Wikimedia LGBT+ meetup with User:Fae, but it was latish in the schedule, hence it was a very small meetup within the representatives of Wikimedia LGBT+.
  2. Chat with a person, who works in a programmers group, in which they work on LGBT issues.
  3. Chats about how to engage new editors for the Wikimedia Projects and how we can become more welcoming.
  4. Hanging out with other (young) participants.
Sunday, 2 April 2017
  1. Attended ‘How to grow a user group’
  2. Some discussions about dealing with gender neutral pronouns in other languages. English has a big benefit with having the ‘singular they’, a lot of other languages have no comparable pronouns or use gendered nouns.
  3. While some chats about the gender gap, I recognized again, that it covers only women and is not about “non-male persons”.
  4. End of the WMCON
Monday, 3 April 2017
  1. Joined a city tour through berlin.
  2. Departure back home from Berlin

-- Freddy2001 talk 21:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization, or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement.

In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from Wikimedia Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable to return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia trademarks, including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those agreements.

If you have questions about what this means for community members in the affected affiliates’ region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. The FAQ talk page is available for additional questions and comments, and the Affiliations Committee is happy to answer questions directly.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet helpSubscribe or unsubscribe.

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)[edit]

05:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

WMF blog: "Wikimedia Foundation updates non-discrimination policy to support inclusive and diverse workplace"[edit]

Page watchers may be interested in this WMF blog post:

-Another Believer (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Using "LGBT+"[edit]

Proposal

The LGBT portal and related pages should use the title LGBT+ matching the name of our user group. Currently LGBT+ is a redirect, which is handy, but as our commitment is to be open to contributions on Queer, Questioning, Asexual and other topics, including the '+' in our page titles feels more right. This was raised as a question by a couple of people at WMCON, especially as my badge missed off the '+', and is probably more often significant for those in non-English countries where other abbreviations and terms are used, but LGBT+ is understood. -- (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Support as proposer. Raising as a formal-looking proposal as this affects quite a few pages and interlinks. -- (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Good to be inclusive of other sexual orientations and gender identities, and I support this acronym for that purpose. Funcrunch (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support The more, the merrier, and we avoid the letter salad we sould have otherwise ;) --Ecelan (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Should the page be moved to Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group to reflect our current status? -Another Believer (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    I suggest sticking to Wikimedia LGBT+, as we welcome people posting here or asking questions who do not identify as part of the user group - we have no membership as a deliberate choice, and some folks are keen to stay independent from any organization. We should however also include changing LGBT to LGBT+ in the categories. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
    I am fine with or without "User Group". I just wanted to throw the idea out there since many other Wikimedia user groups include this as part of their designated page's title. -Another Believer (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support I would like to get rid of the "portal" designation also. When that was set up, there was less understanding of the concept of user group, chapter, or thematic organization pages. Probably this group is close to being able to register as a "thematic organization", if it wished, and in that case the name would be "Wikimedia LGBT+". There has been repeated past conversation about which LGBT acronym would be used and "LGBT+" has been consistently supported since proposed in 2014 as described at Talk:Wikimedia_LGBT/Archive_3#General_questions_by_Affiliations_Committee_to_the_interested_affiliate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't like the portal setup either, though I do appreciate that the page has been translated into many languages since the portal framework was established. I just find it difficult to edit and the redirect to "/Portal" seems unnecessary. -Another Believer (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we have sufficient consensus to get on with it. Can someone who understands our portal layout and translations give it a go? The last time I tried moving this stuff on meta, I found it confusing to repair all the breakages I made. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is the reason the page is stayed put for so long. I really wish the pages were easier to move and edit. Perhaps @Verdy p: is able to help? -Another Believer (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Another Believer: I've done the changes in all pages, categories and templates, I hope there's no broken links left. But when renaming translatable pages no redirect is left and some redirects may still be needed for links from other wikis/sites. verdy_p (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Verdy p: Thank you for your help! Wow, I find this portal/translation framework very cumbersome. I hope others will join in me in making sure pages don't have broken links, etc. Thanks again! -Another Believer (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
How to avoid this ? There are many pages. It would have been simpler to do if there were not already some existing redirect shortcuts added, it was necessary to resolve naming conflicts. Initially the naming scheme was simpler using the same base prefix so this could not be done by just renaming the base page. Additionally I checked all the existing links from pages that needed to be edited. Renaming categories as well and recategorizing pages is not done simply by renaming pages, so these pages have to be edited as well.
Such event (renaming a whole group) should not occur so often, so this is exceptional. There's no other way to do that given the limits of the wiki which is not really a dynamic CMS. Additionally there are access restrictions that limit the speed at which this can be done. So this requires multiple smaller edits to fix successive links. It requires some patience and method but it's doable and I did it, it took me a bit more than one hour (including resolving all double redirects left in several pages).
Finally it was also necessary to resubmit the base English pages for translation. It tried to minimize the impact by not forcing every edit to be translated again. But there are still some fuzzy translation resources (shown in red background in translated pages): most of them are trivial to revalidate if it's just to add a missing "+" after "LGBT".
There may be some details about some places where you'll want "LGBT" replaced by "LGBT+" in English (but not that on some languages this "+" causes problems, notably with RTL ones (Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Hebrew). Translators need to find a solution, or may just ignore this "+" addition in English or languages written in LTR scripts (Latin/Cyrillic/Greek).
You'll note that I fixed a few templates which were incorrectly written to support translations. But these pages were already using a small set of navigation templates which are grouped together in the parent category. They reduce a lot the number of edits to do in pages or translations, so it was not so much "cumbersome" as you think. There may be some ways to reduce further the maintenance needed for such operation.
Note also that to do all this, it was necessary to have the "translate admin" privilege to resynchronize all existing translations. If you think that, when editing translated pages, there are still missing items that should be edited in the English page and resubmitted to translate, contact me or another translate admin. I did that because you "pinged" me on this page and I was notified of your request when visiting any Wikimedia sites. verdy_p (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Much appreciated! I have never used a CMS that I liked, but how weird that we created something ... less good. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
MediaWiki could be better, but many of the extensions that would be needed and that are present in CMS are not allowed on this wiki. There are tons of CMS-like extensions for MediaWiki, used on specific wiki sites, generally closed, because they require API access and active scripting and more freedom to inject code in pages. We have to live here with these restrictions and not all extensions are accepted on Wikimedia sites. Instead, most of the time, we need human maintenance (and we tolerate a few bots to do some repetitive maintenance tasks). CMS systems work with a strong commitments of extension developers and content editors working in a close team with predictable delivery delays, and a supervizing director. It is not possible here. This wiki only has a few normal editors that will not invest time in debugging Mediawiki extensions or implementing new access restrictions, and we don't have enough admins to follow this small subproject with too specific tools. All we can do is trying to assist editors and translators to minimize the work they need to do most of the time. For the rest, we have this talk page, some experienced or patient editors like me that will do the maintenance needed... when they are notified and have time to dedicate to do it and reply to some additional requests or more complex tuning (when most basic wiki editors do not understand ho this works and don't want to invest any time to understand it).
MediaWiki developers may be sollicitated but there are not a lot of them and have lot of more important work to do that will support many more pages or projects in multiple wikis. And they have a hard job in optimizing the server load and develop tools helping to avoid damages by spammers and too many unfair users, or hackers trying to harvest the powerload of Wikimedia servers to do very bad thing to the internet or to steal private data or harass people, so site security is a premium goal before adding any extension (that must be extensively tested and approved more globally than just for a few pages like here). Additionally there are additional goals such as maintaining the technical skills needed to edit wikis relatively low, and not frightening people from editing wikis without unexpectedly breaking too many pages, and still allow all edits to be eaisly reverted without much damages. So out wikis evolve gradually and slowly and most of the work is done and must be done by humans while keeping some felxibility for possible gradual changes everywhere.
But here such extensions is clearly not needed. We've just got a "major" change of a single name used in various pages/templates/categories that needed some edits, but this was not so long that dedicated bots had to be used. Anyway we have no hurry, we can be patient, and humans can do this work as it will not be repeated often. Note that I fixed a few other pages that were experiencing some naming bugs for using some templates. This is fixed now. May be there's still some hidden link that does not go where it should, this can be fixed by editing pages normally. verdy_p (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

Wikimedia-logo black.svg

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

  • April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
  • April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
  • April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
  • May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
  • May 15–19 – Board vote checking
  • May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

  • Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
    • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
  • Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
    • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections(at)wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Wikimedia movement strategic planning: Cycle 1[edit]

There is ongoing strategic planning for the future of the Wikimedia movement. Please see the following links for more information:

Cycle 1 lasts until April 15, which is just 3 days from now. Click here for details:

If you have any ideas, or want to see what others are saying and contribute to any ongoing discussions, check out Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 1. Thanks! -Another Believer (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Experimental LGBT+ Wikidata reports[edit]

I have tried playing around with interesting SPARQL queries to see how Wikidata reports might help with future LGBT+ editathons or projects. I would appreciate any feedback on the tables below. Some with poor results show how the Wikidata records, or our project labeling using Wikidata, might become part of live reports to drive editathons, for example to generate maps of LGBT+ history, like historic sites of gay history around Europe, or LGBT+ culture, such as a live map of gay bars in Germany with Wikipedia articles. Click on the bottom left of the report to see the SPARQL code.

  1. Map LGBT Pride Parades listed by country and where wiki sites have entries.
  2. LGBT+ people who died of unnatural causes sorted in order of how many wiki sites have entries for them. Some have articles about their death, but are not about them.
  3. Authors found by searching for books which have topics like queer studies or a genre of LGBT
  4. Map of LGBT historic places
  5. Missing LGBT+ rights activists in English, Spanish and German

Also raised at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies but these are not specifically for English based events.

Thanks -- (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

19:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)[edit]

19:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections[edit]

21:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)