Talk:Wikimedia LGBT+

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Portal Activities Business History Participants & Supporters Privacy Resources Discussion


LGBT+ User Group Meetup - Discussion[edit]

I want to share the report I wrote about my experiences as an LGBT+ User Group representative at the Wikimedia Conference last month in Berlin. My notes and a summary of the discussion with our opportunities, challenges, and next steps raised at our LGBT+ Meetup are all online: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT%2B/Wikimedia_Conference_2018#LGBT+_User_Group_Meetup We are really interested in your thoughts and feedback! Due to the many channels we have and our intentions to engage with as many of our LGBT+ User Group members as possible, we ask if we can focus the feedback replies via our email list https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/lgbt or via the Talk page on the post itself. Looking forward to continuing our opportunities together! --- FULBERT (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There has been some discussion across several channels on a remote Pride Editathon. Anybody know if anything like that is already planned or in process? FULBERT (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2018 will run during the month of June, at least as an English Wikipedia project. -Another Believer (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Another Believer for the link. On there is a page for a Remote Wiki Loves Pride event page for discussion and ideas related to engaging in Pride Month events for people who do not have a local Wiki Loves Pride presence. --- FULBERT (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

LGBT+ User Group representatives[edit]

One of the issues that arose when I met with the Affiliations Committee about our user group is it is unclear who our two representatives are in their system, namely the contacts who they reach out to when they need to communicate with us or who they will ask for reporting. I was told that they should be listed on our site and input in their system, which they did not have. Does anybody know who they are so we can make sure they are listed here and do not miss any communications. Pinging User:Another Believer User:Bluerasberry User:Nattes à chat User:RachelWex to make sure you see this and inquire if you know. I volunteer to be one of these, even if temporary, if nobody is currently in place. I think that, going into Pride Month (in many parts of the world) we need to begin sorting these issues to remain in good standing. --FULBERT (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

By default one was probably me, but if anyone would like to setup a consensus process we could nominate reps. There is no official procedure and the affcom contacts may have no special relationship to how the group might be represented elsewhere. BTW, I think we can have as may points of contact as we want,we should naturally inform Affcom when they change or become inactive. (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we should have as many male representatives as female representatives. I think that a group of people instead of only two representatives would be better.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 16:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the original reps were User:Fae, User:Hexatekin (formerly User:OR drohowa), and myself. I have no problem letting someone else be the official rep, and I'm not sure Hexatekin is very active these days. But, like Fae suggested, I also don't think the official contacts are really afforded any special privileges or relationships, so this may be an unnecessary worry. We needed names to create a group, but now that the group is created, the reps are really just the folks who step up, apply to attend conferences and other events, propose and run online campaigns, contribute to on- and off-wiki discussions, etc. Sparrow, re: "I think that a group of people instead of only two representatives would be better." This is how I see this group already. There are not really official leaders. And, just for the record, User:Hexatekin is female, so there were 2 male and 1 female reps originally. -Another Believer (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
AffCom informed me when we met that there should be two user group reps who are their points of contact and who should be listed on our User Group site; I did not inquire if there could be more than two or how other groups handled this (I only had 15 minutes with them). When I asked them who our reps were now, they did not have any names in their system for when they looked us up. FULBERT (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Their system has missed our existing foundation agreement for some reason. The 3 reps are named on it, alongside our signatures. We should ask Affcom to correct their data to match the user group agreement they have on record.
Our website is these pages on meta, and I'll double check the agreement later today and add a section on our portal with names and original dates. Affcom asking for this is a new requirement, so I'll drop them a confirming note. We are deliberately run with the minimum possible bureaucracy, but as the reps are in the agreement we should take care to record the baseline and be able to link to a user group consensus for changes. Unless someone wants to propose another way, that probably needs nominations and a vote on meta, supported by a note out on our linked comms channels. (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Checking through my email archive, I added our three signatures to the Wikimedia Foundation PDF User Group Agreement on 9 October 2014 and Another Believer officially sent the document to WMF Legal on 10 October 2014. The User Group "Effective Date" stated in the document by the WMF is September 18, 2014. During my role with Chapters, these WMF agreements often get published on-wiki, but as the User Group is not a legal entity, there is no requirement for us to make this document (with our signatures and full legal names) a public record. As we want anyone to be able to participate in WMLGBT+ while respecting their privacy, I suggest we avoid publishing full legal names unless this is a firm requirement, as this would lock out people who prefer to keep their legal name confidential, even if they are happy to have it associated with their Wikimedia accounts in private.
What I'll add to the portal page is that from 2014-09-18 the WMLGBT+ UG representatives have been Hexatekin, Another Believer and . All of our three Wikimedia accounts have email enabled, as well as us remaining active and available via on-wiki pages.
As there is no urgency, I suggest we consider putting out a note later this week/month asking for feedback on the process for nominating or reconfirming representatives, so the discussion is not limited to meta. It is a requirement that potential representatives are comfortable with confirming their identities with the WMF, which means sharing "Government ID", name and address if requested by the WMF; however apart from this and the normal annual activity reporting requirement for user groups, the procedure is deliberately light-weight. My understanding is that the 2014 agreement with the WMF will continue to stand, even if our representatives named on these meta pages changes. However that's something that I will confirm in my email to Affcom to make sure.
It's worth repeating that the UG reps are an administrative necessity, the reps have no other agreed role in the User Group, we were three active members who happened to be available to meet up during Wikimania with Affcom. As we have had the same reps for 4 years, asking for nominations and potentially refreshing our named reps to ensure they are active participants and likely to be available for any questions from Affcom or the WMF is a sensible idea. The process discussion may also be a good time for people to question whether we need to have a more regular committee-type structure with, say, a set of annual minutes. -- (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the due diligence in keeping these records and reaching out to AffCom to make sure they are current and we do not get left out of any important communications. I agree that our maintaining and sharing what they require is a good idea, and as this was the first of the immediate recommendations that came from my meeting with them in April (along with the companionship of User:Imacat who joined me in the meeting). I also agree that using real names or User: names here on Wiki is also a good option due to some complexities our community faces globally. As we discussed in the Meetup as well, this is a great step in our thinking about how we may want to develop and what needs of our community we may want to better understand and meet. --- FULBERT (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added a representatives list to the Participants page diff. If the User Group changes this list, one of the reps needs to then "formally" tell Affcom.

As mentioned above, an email has been sent to Affcom informing them of the publication of representatives on our Portal page, along with naming them in the email. The email subject is "Wikimedia LGBT+ representatives" and was sent a few minutes ago; just in case anyone needs to reference it or help an Affcom member find it. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this for our user group ; really glad we could get this in order as it keeps us current with AffCom needs. --- FULBERT (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2018[edit]

I've mentioned this briefly above, but I'd like to invite project members to please consider contributing to this year's Wiki Loves Pride campaign in some way. The results are already coming in and looking nice. It'd be nice to have even more to showcase, so spare a moment if you have one. Thanks to all who help keep this going! -Another Believer (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Any thought on having this via a project tracker (projects dashboard)? Wondering about this for the remote participation as well. Very glad this is here, as I initially missed it! So very important we gather some of these data to show some of the impact of our work --- FULBERT (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed board[edit]

I have removed the old "proposed board" from the Participants list diff. Though the User Group has meetings, the idea of a formal Board with necessary roles and committee structure never appeared to take off. In practice the User Group defaults to minimal bureaucracy, but if anyone wishes to pursue more formal structuring to help enable better communications or coordination, they are welcome to raise similar ideas on our communication channels or here. -- (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this, and now we are in compliance with AffCom, at least we are current and our origination story is clarified and listed here. I also agree that being contacts to make sure our user group gets communications and remains current is more vital than having a structured board or leadership group as we are a bit more informal and flexible. We should likely want to make sure that User:Hexatekin and User:Another Believer want to remain as our other two AffCom contacts. Can you both let us know? --- FULBERT (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I have sent a private email to Hexatekin as she has not commented here yet, though she is active. We should be cautious to give people weeks rather than days to reply to stuff going on. Everyone has times where they are busy at work, study, or committed to other real life events and may not be able to participate for a while. Face-smile.svg
With regard to process, we should have a defined procedure for taking nominations, set voting rules, and any steps expected for changing our representatives. As has been mentioned, though the rep has no required other roles, it would be healthy to be seen to encourage positive diversity and avoid having all representatives being the same gender or identified sexuality. Though the UG does not have members, we can run a consensus based procedure by notifying all our channels about nominations and possibly leaving on-wiki notices for all the signed participants on the portal.
So long as people have had their say about process and we have time for anyone to put ideas for alternatives, we could run a process to confirm new reps and give an opportunity for past reps to step back.
The requirements are to be available, active and legally identified to the WMF, but the role itself is not burdensome. There is an expectation that if things go wrong in some way, the reps will be available and comfortable to answer potentially difficult questions and be in a position to take timely action, including handling governance issues. Fortunately as the UG has no direct control over money, governance problems are unlikely. Naturally this would change if a Board or regular Committee were to be established, as processes for governance and authority and responsibility would then form and be delegated.
The current three reps have been in place for almost 4 years, which is a good term for these roles, similar to the terms we see for charity trustees. We might want to consider whether after 4 years we should have a documented light-weight procedure for reconfirming and voting in new reps. We would not want to have reps "retire" by default through not self-nominating, and fail to have new candidates lined up, so I would encourage the idea that we see 2 reps as an absolute minimum, and preferably continue to have 3 or more named reps so that we can rely on at least one always being currently active, aware of WM-LGBT+ projects and available to respond to any urgent Affcom/WMF questions within a business day. -- (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the "board" list -- I never really understood why we kept for so long, apart from aspirations of growing into an organization. I am indifferent about remaining a user group representative. I'm happy to have been one for several years, and I'm also fine with someone else taking my place. I'm more interested in the group's activities and representation at Wikimedia events than who appears on the user group agreement. -Another Believer (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement‎ 2018-20‎ Working Groups[edit]

I hope everybody here saw that the Strategy‎ | Wikimedia movement‎ | 2018-20‎ | Working Groups call for participants is now available. I engaged in a number of these discussions at the Wikimedia Conference two months ago, and strongly encourage anybody who is interested to volunteer for one of the working groups. It is very important that we have our voices included in this work. I am not involved whatsoever with the processing or selection of the volunteer applications, though encourage others to apply for this valuable work. FULBERT (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Women in Red - a proposed User Group[edit]

Having worked for 2 years editing articles for Women In Red, a group of organizers have concluded that sourcing is one of the biggest hurdles in creating articles on women and non-binary genders. Though it is true that a lot of sourcing simply doesn’t exist, it is also true that there are sources, but we have no access to them. As these groups did not typically become subjects for academic study until the 1970s, many of the sources are not on line or are behind paywalls. Failure to include women and non-binary people in the encyclopedia presents a one-dimensional view of society and history. To address those issues, we are forming a new User Group aimed at referencing and support for like-minded groups and would appreciate your input or input from your supporters in our organizational process. See link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Women_in_Red SusunW (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: I have raised an area of concern on the talk page of the proposal, I would not want to reopen the same discussion here. However there is some disagreement with the apparent positive view of the proposal, for example "The various LGBT/LGBTQ stuff can have its own user group, and as contributors they are just as welcome to work on all of this stuff as the men are.", refer to diff. It comes over as a positively anti-LGBT+ attitude, which is very unfortunate for the proposed new User Group, sorry. -- (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I am dismayed and strongly objected to that statement and the exclusionary view that it represents. (Would that you Europeans were on the same time schedule as Mexico. I am always so far behind). SusunW (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This series of discussions had a happy outcome. The proposed new group is now named Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group, making it explicitly clear at the top level that the group includes gender queer, non-binary and trans/transitioning users and topics in its intended scope. As the new user group gets underway, I am looking forward to seeing some collegiate working with WM-LGBT+ so that both can support a wider population of contributors and readers. -- (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

IRC #wikimedia-lgbt[edit]

Over the last few days Freenode, which is who runs the IRC servers we use for Wikimedia channels, has been responding with a serious spam problem by blocking messages from unidentified users. Until now, users could get on our channels to ask questions with an anonymous guest account or temporary name. In practice this may also mean that users will be unable to connect using the conventional name server even if they have an IRC account, and instead have to swap to the more direct SASL process.

I think this means that until Freenode can lift its restrictions, it is better to point out other channels for newbies that want to chat with LGBT+ user group participants or discuss LGBT+ related issues, such as the email list, Telegram, Twitter or Facebook. In particular Telegram remains popular, and is probably the best place for Wikimedia contributors to get a reply to questions. -- (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)