Talk:QW2022

Anyone can comment here

Thanks! Bluerasberry (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Call for project manager

There is QW2022/call for project management

I advertised this on wiki at

• en:special:permalink/1088927115#Wanted:_event_manager_for_Queering_Wikipedia_2022
• es:special:permalink/143672204#Wanted:_event_manager_for_Queering_Wikipedia_2022

I talked with external vendor

• https://www.bk-avirtual.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N43pHim0X1I

and have contacted

• https://meetings.copernicus.org/

and some individual consultancies that I will not name yet. If anyone has referrals then please share. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

More

• https://twitter.com/wikilgbt/status/1529455754314493955

Bluerasberry (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Candidacy of Education@Internet (E@I)

The organization Education@Internet (in which I am working and volunteering) have candidated for the position of project management and providing the conference platform for WQ 2022. E@I has a more than a decade long experience of organising in-person conferences, seminars and meetings, and since 2020 also experience of organizing virtual conferences of its own and for other organisations (most notably Virtual Congress of Esperanto in 2020 for the World Esperanto Assotiation with cca 1 800 registered participants, and also smaller meetings for e.g. World Esperanto Youth Organisation and International League of Esperantists Teachers with hundreds of participants). That inlcudes the general organisation, event and project management, program compilation, marketing, bookkeeping, managing volunteers etc. E@I has developed its own online platform for such conferences - Retevent - and can provide it for QW 2022.

Members of the team also have a wikimedia community experience, notably organising the Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2013 together by E@I and WMSVK (in which I was responsible for organising) and organizing WMSVK's Slovakian WikiConference 2015 and 2017 (both of them organized by me).

E@I has a long tradition of supporting Wikimedia movement. E.g. both of the books in language Esperanto about Wikipedia are published by E@I, E@I have organised the first succesful article-editing competition in the Esperanto Wikipedia and for years is providing office, post address and mentoring for Wikimedia User Groups Wikimedians of Slovakia and Esperanto and Free Knowledge. I, as a long time active wikimedia community organiser (many article-editing competitions, founding and leading organisation, engagement, IT for WM organisation etc), am personally involved in E@I and its candidacy for project management role for QW. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

conference dates?

is there a date for the conference? Or any indication of what month it will be in? thanks --MassiveEartha (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@MassiveEartha: October. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikimania platform post

Choosing an online platform for Wikimedia events is challenging because of our community's accessibility needs.

See this recent post about Wikimania's platform https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/07/20/the-platform-powering-wikimania-2022/ Bluerasberry (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Postponement

Queering Wikipedia 2022 is postponed. The new target is early 2023.

We continue to seek applicants for project management.

• QW2022/call for project management

Two roles and likely two different managers:

• set up all technical aspects of this online conference, including website and video streaming
• Wikimedia community management, including support for the volunteer communities for program, communications, moderation, and administration

The Wikimedia community is good at presenting Wikipedia. Our community of volunteers is not good at event administration, which is why we have paid roles. Apply through the link above. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Where can we read about the reasons for the postponement? Peltarion (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Our appeal for project management was poorly focussed, meaning that the bids we had were more directed at the technical aspects than the project management and event management aspects. As we were getting increasingly close to the proposed date of the conference and our internal volunteer capacity is low, we discussed with our partner in the Grants team and agreed to postpone the external-facing parts of the conference, so that we can ensure it gets organised properly. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that Beeblebrox's comment above serves no obvious purpose apart from harassment, I think that the more sensible people here should think about how the involvement of more than one person who has been banned or long-term blocked from their home Wikis reflects on this and other LGBTQ+ projects within Wikimedia. Some of us have avoided getting involved in the past because of the presence of certain individuals. Openly disassociating yourselves from certain types might make it easier to recruit those queer Wikipedians that want to avoid them. 82.45.168.246 16:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm with the other anon. Wikimedia LGBT is basically synonymous with Fae - who seems to be on every committee, attend every meeting, and run every communications channel the UG has. There are plenty of queer Wikimedians, myself included, who've suffered from Fae's harassment, bullying and hounding in the past and are never going to feel safe in a space run by Fae. But there seems to be no way to raise this issue safely with the UG when you have a bunch of "safe space" policies written by one of the biggest harassers in the movement that direct you to committees on which they also sit. The sooner the User Group stops digging this hole the better tbh, and the only way to get out of it is to make it clear that Fae doesn't occupy any positions of authority in the group. 2A02:C7F:BD0C:F700:910E:250:98D9:C305 16:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic, allegations that a user is abusing multiple accounts belong at RfCU, any other behavioral concerns may be addressed at Meta:RFH. More general discussion of concerns with the organization belong at Talk:Wikimedia LGBT+, this talk page is not a forum for general discussion 131.128.76.50 19:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Where can we read more about Fae creating one exceedingly obvious sock after another in the name of avoiding harassment? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Your continued harassment of Fæ on and off wiki is a frustrating timesink. I'm not going to write about their involvement without their consent, but I will remind you that the user group is a Foundation Affiliate in good standing and that neither AffCom nor the Grants team, nor Community Resilience & Sustainability (Trust & Safety) nor the User Group's governance team share the concerns you and others keep raising on Wikipediocracy. Perhaps we could all maybe try to focus on improving encyclopædic content rather than what appear, from outside at least, to be years-long personal vendettas? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC) PS: Incidentally, when I get up to go to the toilet at 4am and notice harassment that I revert, I tend to go back to bed, rather than answering other questions I hadn't previously seen. Yeah, this is just absurd. Owen has acknowledged right here that he knows as well as all the rest of us that these accounts are all Fae. So, what's the point? Fae is a poison on this user group. Fae quit every other aspect of involvement with this movement. They don't contribute anything anymore except to pop up with a new sock every few months to make edits about this user group. The socks aren't for protection, they are for maintaining the premise that Fae is "on strike" while continuing their years-long quest to squeeze some cash out of their involvement with the Wikimedia movement. Fae is using you all for their own agenda, and it's sad and alarming that some of you can't seem to see it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, the talk page of an event is not the appropriate place to make accusations of harassment or of improper behaviour of an Affiliate that the Foundation considers to be in good standing and about whom the Grants teams have no concerns. If editors, logged in or otherwise, want to make such accusations, they should do so through the appropriate channels. Allegations that a user is abusing multiple accounts belong at RfCU, any other behavioral concerns may be addressed at Meta:RFH. More general discussion of concerns with the organization belong at Talk:Wikimedia LGBT+, this talk page is not a forum for general discussion. — OwenBlacker (Talk), on behalf of the User Group Governance Committee. 20:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Budget change

Along with the postponement, the budget for project management increased from $30,000 to $40,000, which reflects the expanded scope of project management required for QW22. While justified, this is a significant change to the budget. How is this increase being funded? Is it additional funds from WMF? If it is being funded by a reallocation of the existing budget, where can we see what aspects are being decreased? Peltarion (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Peltarion: It may either be an increase from the WMF or a reallocation. Our grants officer communicated that either is an option. For now it is an undetermined reallocation, then if more money is needed to make the conference a success, then the WMF will provide.

I want to be forthcoming with information but it is challenging for me to guess what is useful. Feel free to ask more as you like. One bit of context, if it is not clear: we are all volunteers lacking professional experience in this space. We, and the Wikimedia Movement in general, are anticipating a future where professional conference managers take on more responsibility in presenting more Wikimedia community conferences. It has been hard to guess what rates people and organizations would quote in the market place, and how they would respond to the unique needs of the wiki community.

When you are thinking of these budget questions, you might also wish to reflect on the big picture: Wikimedia community groups like ours would prefer to get $0, and instead just have referrals to adequate staffing to administer conferences. This is a challenge for us and not standardized among the 15-20 Wikimedia conferences which happen annually, and which are increasing in number. We have the LGBT+ side covered, and we have volunteer activities covered. What we lack is everything not LGBT+, and that which volunteers will not do. I wish that I could show you the Wikimedia community's proven conference budget which works, so that for any given conference, it would be easy to see what is normal. This conference is doing a lot of new things so norms are not established.

And if you know a person or organization who can run a conference for 40k, then send them over. I wish it were easy to hire professional services to do this. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Documentation of meeting?

It’s good that this meeting took place, and I’m disappointed not to have been able to be part of it. I am interested in the presentations, and even more so in the outcomes. I note "Documentation output will be translated into additional languages”, is the documentation available in English (and/or Spanish) in the interim? Thanks Peltarion (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Peltarion: We took notes of the talks. Spanish and English notes are separate and we are still thinking about how to combine and report them. We have most of the slides. Some were translated before the conference, some after, and some we are still considering. There will be published documentation. The way that things have been happening is that there has been some work done by paid facilitators, but volunteers are making final decisions and especially considering ethical and safety concerns. We ask for consent in advance but when confirming consent before publication, people often withdraw the consent to publish which they previously gave. Sometimes people do this to get privacy, or they want to alter the notes for safety.

I wish that I could give you documentation of all the checks that we have to do for notes to present a Wikimedia meeting with vulnerable participants, but what we are doing is unprecedented in the Wikimedia Movement and no process is yet written. Consequently, there are not rules for how we are developing a report.

The best that I can say now is that a mix of people are reviewing media and thinking of what to do next with it. I expect the report to come out before end of 2022. That would give a month to compile notes, then another month for the governing committee to review them before publishing. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I respect the privacy and safety matters involved (after all I choose to remain anonymous for my own safety), however it seems to me that details of this event have moved from privacy and safety to secrecy. The meeting included ‘Goal-setting and identifying issues and priorities. Agreeing on decision-making processes. Improving the leadership structure and how to appoint or elect representatives.Planning for the coming 12 months. Queering Wikipedia 2023. Evaluation and learning points.’ These are important things which should be shareable - if not everything that was discussed, at least a summary - what ARE the goals, issues and priorities? What is the leadership structure to be? This shouldn’t need months or weeks to review and share. Peltarion (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I note that some of the slides have been made available on Commons, but also that there has been a further semi-private (invite only) WMLGBT meeting from which some notes have been included on-wiki. Is there in update on when the promised documentation of the QW2022 meeting will be available? Thanks Peltarion (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Peltarion: Here are those notes you mentioned from the last meeting - Wikimedia LGBT/2023-01-02. You are asking for the Queering Wikipedia 2022 report. No, that is not published yet. There is no desire for secrecy; the bottleneck here is lack of paid administrative labor to get the report out. As always I would meet with you or anyone else by video or audio which I could record and post to wiki. Discussing these things by voice is a lot easier than posting text.

The barriers to publishing include that the LGBT group uses consensus rather than designated leadership to approve report publishing; the report takes contributions from multiple volunteers many of whom participate for ~30 minutes a month; there are privacy concerns which we find difficult to manage; and the organization in general has failed in its attempt to hire administrative staff to manage this.

I appreciate your attention and interest and by voice, I can talk through any questions you may have. Just to put some context on your focus: the Wikimedia Foundation has a US$200 million budget. It is hard for me to make an estimate of how much of that does or should go to LGBT+ issues, but when I ask people how much money they think goes to LGBT+ programs, they sometimes guess 1% which would be about $2,000,000. For QW2022, we spent US$11,000. Perhaps that $11,000 is one of the largest Wiki LGBT+ investments in the past 20 years. It is hard for me to follow the money. I get that you want transparency and speed and diligent reporting and thanks a lot for asking, but keep a sense of scale of how Wiki LGBT+ has spent about $30,000 of the billion dollars that the Wikimedia Foundation has collected in the past 20 years. For anyone interested in this topic, Wiki LGBT+ is a key organization, but wherever the resources have been going, the control of financial power is not here in Wiki LGBT+.

If you can help write or advertise a paid staff position so that Wiki LGBT+ can hire someone then that would be helpful. Hiring staff is the surest way to get reports out quickly. I have a strong preference for all wiki community community groups to hire staff with the intent of zero program impact, and 100% administrative duty. I think you would appreciate that also. If you can recruit a journalist or blogger or vlogger, however modest, I would be happy to talk with them about the state of Wiki LGBT+ in a recorded interview. Me being the target of interrogation for an hour in recorded video is a lot easier than getting the report out, a lot more fun for me, and I think it would be more satisfying to anyone with specific questions. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)