Talk:Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/Wikimedia LGBT is about to happen

Comment

Is there a way to address the appallingly transphobic recent en:wp arbcom decision, with or without naming it specifically? (This is probably a question about how "T" the "LGBT" is) - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bradley/Chelsea thing? It's already been in the news. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

David, I'm afraid I find the whole thing far too upsetting to get involved with. Sorry, I could do without getting stressed by even going through the details. I would like to thank you for staying with it, speaking openly and following your conscience.

By keeping WM-LGBT's activities more general, I think there is an opportunity to move forward with guidelines on the basics of respect for LGBT people and culture across all of Wikimedia's projects. I think a patient and relatively conservative approach is wise and I support that strategy, even though many of us, including myself, will remain impatient until we see real commitment and change across the board. --Fæ (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I predict it will be the main topic of discussion in the comments - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternative version

I like the alternative version, but I wonder why GLAM is linked to https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/GLAM-WIKI_2012. --Another Believer (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I had just copied the links from the original version without looking closely enough. Is this the better link? https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM Matthew (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Eventually, there might be a GLAM subpage for Wikimedia LGBT, but until then, I think the general GLAM page at Outreach is best. --Another Believer (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

like the alternative version, It's really better than mine (I'm not native) I hope this version will publish very soonAmir (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Amir, thank you for getting the ball rolling! --Another Believer (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia GB versus Wikimedia LGBT

I'm going to be blunt here as I have been on the mailing list. This blog post should be presented as representing Wikimedia GB, standing for Gays and Bisexuals. The list for which this was most actively discussed on is dominated by gay and bisexual males. There appear to be no lesbians and transgendered people involved in formaulating this as about to happen. The voices from the Wikimedia LT community that do exist have largely abandoned ship and their views are not being represented here. It would be a misrepresentation to the wider community to imply otherwise. After the successful outreach is done to actively include and represent these voices again in the community, then a decision should be made whether or not to include LT back in the name. --LauraHale (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how do you even know who is male or female, and who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or straight? I see a list of usernames who form a group of contributors interested in improving content on Wikimedia projects that is of interest in the LGBT community. I fully support the blog post as a form of outreach and an introduction to a wider audience, with the attempt to recruit interest in the group's mission. Thank you to everyone who has been involved in the construction of this blog post. --Another Believer (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

WM LGBT is nominally claiming to represent both the Lesbian and Transgendered communities on Wikimedia. And you know, I'm just not seeing it. "Well! You can't see it! Because how you can tell?" hardly seems like the best answer. If there are lesbians and transgendered people who support this, I think we should wait until those who self identify that way can make clear that they do so and that the "organization" represents their issues. I think this should be rewritten as a personal post, making it clear that it represents the views of a certain cross segment that does not include Lesbians or Transgendered people. If you want this as outreach, that's fine but realize that you're are going to send a message of "Lesbians and Transgendered people, you're not wanted here." That was apparent from all the tokenism discussion on the mailing list. --LauraHale (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know how to respond at this point. I just want to note that I have started a centralized discussion here. --Another Believer (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really certain at this point how to go forward either if it helps. It looks clear from the mailing list that the fundamental tensions that exist between GB and LT are not really resolvable. Female participation has dropped off in the WM LGBT mailing list. There appears to be no clear path forward. The most vocal people appear set on the current path. If this is the way things are headed and people taking leadership positions are happy with it, then this point is moot. For those of us not happy with it, we can just tell others behind the scenes that WM LGBT does not speak for us. We also have the option at any point of putting forth an application to create a user group that works towards similar but different goals. I would suggest though that people think long and hard about these issues before going further. As some one who has gone through the aff-comm process for a thematic organization and read a lot of the other applications, I can tell you this issue will be brought up. The group will be asked about diversity of membership in terms of all those letters. They'll also be asked about international representation. --LauraHale (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)