Talk:Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013

Please leave your questions, comments, ideas or concerns here.

Interested to hear more!

Hi Julia, I'm excited to hear more about this as your planning moves forward - hope you'll keep me posted. Thanks for sharing this write-up of thoughts so far. :-) Siko (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Same here! :) SarahStierch (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Siko, hi Sarah, thanks for your interest in the conference! Julia and I will let you know about the progress :-) talk soon --Cornelia Trefflich (WMDE) (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Who else will be at Wikimania in HongKong?

Hey everybody (especially those interested in diversity topics)! As I will attend Wikimania, I am looking forward to meeting as many people as possible in person. Please contact me via e-mail or my talk page, so that we can have a chat! See you at Wikimania! --Cornelia Trefflich (WMDE) (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll be there, so will Siko. We will be hosting the annual WikiWomen's Lunch. If you have registered through the Wikimania registration system everyone who self selected as female during registration will get an invitation! That'll be a great chance to meet other WikiWomen and those interested in diversity. Looking forward to it! SarahStierch (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be at Hong Kong, and am interested in increasing diversity. When will we know more about this planned event, in terms of concrete goals? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 06:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I will be there in Hong Kong. I am interested in diversity and culture in Wikimedia. It would be great if we can meet each other. Looking forward to meeting you! '--Netha Hussain (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Sarah: I will also be at the WikiWomen's Lunch, definitely a great chance to catch up on things! @Asaf: We are working on concrete goals and will update this page asap. Please feel welcome to suggest any topics you would like to talk about! @Netha: diversity and culture sounds great- also looking forward to meeting you! --Cornelia Trefflich (WMDE) (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I will be at Wikimania as well and am much looking forward to talk about diversity related topics. I've already heard about the WikiWomen's Lunch - I certainly won't miss it!--Muriel Staub (WMCH) (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Great to hear you will also be in Hong Kong! The WikiWomen's Lunch will be on Saturday, August 10, 1:00pm-2:00pm  :-) --Cornelia Trefflich (WMDE) (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I Will be in Hong Kong too! And I am looking forward to meeting you. --Siesta (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We look forward to receiving your ideas!

• Do you have a specific topic or an idea about what you like to discuss?
• Do you have a topic that you would like to present?

Please let us know by entering your idea below. There will be different formats, which you can choose, e.g. presentation, workshops, discussion, … (if you already know your prefered format, let us know). Besides, we will provide an open panel, so we have enough space to discuss these topics which will arise at the conference.

I would like to hear more about...

Your input here

• Disability and Wikimedia, bringing together disparate groups * Pennybinary
  • Perhaps something on addressing systemic bias as it relates to the disabled community. For example, the notability and verifiability policies on Wikipedia seem to favour mainstream media as reliable sources, while much of what happens in the disabled community slips well under the radar of the mainstream media, making it harder for disability-related articles to attract "notability". AugurNZ ✐⌕ 17:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Why too few senior citizens participate in Wikimedia projects? How can we encourage more senior citizens to participate in the movement?

Senior citizens (those who are past the retirement age) have a wealth of traditional knowledge. Their concepts, opinions and ideas may be different from the rest of the population. Their perspective would add diversity of opinion to the articles in Wikipedia. I would like to hear more about how we can engage more elderly women and men in Wikimedia projects. Netha Hussain (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sharing experiences on how age diversity is working out in different chapters could be useful. Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Barriers to contribution by traditional / indigenous / spoken cultures in en:Wikipedia, and specific policies that could be changed regarding verifiability for these cultures. Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Engaging the global South in Wikimedia movement : Challenges and solutions Netha Hussain (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sharing insights regarding potential impact of investing time and volunteer effort in the various language/geographic communities with which we are familiar, and coming up with recommendations for the top 2-5 we can identify, (such as Khmer) that might merit a more detailed cost-benefit analysis. Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Barriers to making Wiki useful for endangered languages-- overcoming the Wikipedia / Wikipedia incubator / Wiktionary / Wikiversity split that impedes adding needed pedagogical content. Dialog with the UCLA wiki project on language revitalization; any experiences using master-apprentice model for age diversity / language transmission and Wiki editing. A presentation by the London-based Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project. Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Engaging the LGBT community --Another Believer (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• I´m interested if (and how) we can actually evaluate gender diversity or other aspects of diversity and its impact on knowledge in articles in Wikipedia. Are there any methods? --Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE) (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this is a chance for Program Evaluation & Design to be involved! SarahStierch (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, there is a need to capture information in a more systematic fashion so that it can be worked through in an organized way, expanded where gaps are identified, and shared with others. Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Turns out evaluation isn't necessarily part of my work scope for the gender gap unless it's about a specific type of program (i.e. is an edit-a-thon effecting the gender gap). SarahStierch (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Brainstorming, discussion, and case studies about what works for creating civility and a safe atmosphere in online communities for all members. Is there someone involved with MeatballWiki who could address this for us? Or from another online community? Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• How do women react to on-wiki / off-wiki communication channels? Can we identify specific gender-related concerns that are more appropriately resolved in non-public settings? If we define all wiki-related communications, including gender-related conflicts, as public for purposes of transparency, is it possible that this will deter women, LGBTQ, youth, or traditionally-minded individuals / conservative religious community members from editing? Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Any experiences groups have had with providing child care for events. Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• GLAM events as a source of female editors. Would prioritizing GLAM make a difference, and if so, how to do it? Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Basic health information as one of the highest priority content areas for serving parents of small children, youth in need of reproductive health care, and the elderly. Options for translation support to reach underserved areas of the world with reliable basic health information. Is there a way to involve women in this effort, or create partnerships and outreach to women? Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This is exactly what I have been working on, and I will be able to provide some insights about what worked so far and what did not. I have some elaborate future plans, and would like to discuss about this with interested people. --Netha Hussain (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Future focus on maintaining high-traffic and contentious articles, now that more and more of the basic articles are already written. What might induce women to take on this role? Any potential partner organizations for outreach? Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have a few concerns, that I would like to see people talk about, maybe, if given a chance I would also like present my experiences so far with those particular issues. Here goes a little introduction of myself: I have been in Wikimedia movement for more than 3 years now. MediaWiki is the place I have contributed most to: have been a volunteer for a long time, an OPW intern for 3 months - where I worked on a collaborative editor for Wikipedia called EtherEditor, currently I have been doing Data Visualizations for the Language Engineering team as a volunteer and if all goes well I am about to join Language Engineering Team in a few days as an engineer. During these few years in MediaWiki and Free Software communities in general, I have seen a gender gap with statistics very heartbreaking. I have talked to many a women who code to figure out the reasons behind, have conducted several workshops myself and tried to figure out why most of the times the attendees have a ratio of 2:11 (or, nearly so) with respect to gender. This is not just a matter of women being reluctant to technology, because they are not. This is also not just because of the fact that they get intimidated by the men that rules the technical fields (I have encountered such complains from a number of women), because just that cannot be the only reason behind it. Maybe, it is. I would just like to know that we have researched well enough to go much deep into the problems before concluding anything. A research paper I have recently read covers the topic of Soft Programming and Hard Programming, which happens to be a very logical research on this particular field. I do think that the approach to overcome this is a bit different from how we are dealing with the gender gap in Editors in general. So, to summarize: I am concerned about bringing more women to contribute to MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia. I want it to happen not just because its an awesome thing that they could do with the skills they already have, also because I believe we need them. We have women with Engineering Degrees, and it is increasing with great statistics there! You do not even need a Software Engineering degree to code, at least for Open Source platforms, you just need to know, how to code. It would be great if I can have people by my side and work on it together and this conference sounds like a great platform. Let me know if you're interested. A panel discussion on this particular topic would be very very helpful indeed. Waiting to hear from others, thank you! --Sucheta Ghoshal (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• How can we best engage with some already existing non-Wikimedian pro-diversity groups, and design a partnership to get more diverse people to engage with the Wikimedia projects? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Race, ethnicity in Wikipedia Thorgodofwar(talk)
• LGBT community (Wikimedia LGBT) --Another Believer (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Why the movement, still, fails to get a decent global conversation beyond the particular going and how the issue could be fixed. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Diversity in language, and how to preserve the languages facing imminent death -Netha Hussain (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Working on a idea based on the Wikimedia Commons. Nasir Khan Saikat (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Does the affiliation model support efforts to address diversity within Wikimedia? --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 07:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• How can we help to implement the 57th session report recommendations of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, particularly Chapter 1, B (page 13) sections (vv) and (ww)? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• I would like to see more participation from countries who are still shying away to express their views, discussion on diversity in culture, lgbti community, and diversity in religion and universal acceptance and love would be great knowledge for everyone. --Sou Boyy (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Gender diversity in South America and how it relates to the Wikimedia projects. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Presence of indigenous community and their language in Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects). Tanweer (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to present...

Your input here

• We have started a network for Wikiwomen in Berlin in November 2012 (We get together on a monthly basis, women learn how to edit Wikipedia-articles etc. and discuss Wikipedia-topics like the gender-gap, etc.) Is anyone interested in learning more about this project? --Siesta (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm interesting in what's working or not working in projects creating local Wikiwomen's networks, yes!Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am interested in learning about how Wikiwomen network works. I can possibly take home some ideas to put to use while conducting outreach sessions in India. --Netha Hussain (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The event will probably be gender gap -heavy already, but I would be more than happy to share my examples. One model that is working well this year is joining up for a series of events with an organisation that has a strong diversity agenda in their mission as well ([1]). Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to present on disability related project work, and how sister projects outside Wikipedia can be used to bring attention to other populations and increase overall participation by targetted groups on WMF projects. --LauraHale (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I would like to present on what works and what does not work in outreach among women in India. --Netha Hussain (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I would like to present on my experiences with the Gender Gap as I have seen in MediaWiki contributors and Free Software in general (I have been doing several workshops and hacking sessions on MediaWiki and I can show the exact statistics from those list of the attendees of the gender gap scenario there. and the possible solution to overcome that.) Solution would not just mean more outreach, but, some changes from root is needed. A different approach towards programming which would encourage more women: here comes the theory of Soft programming and Hard Programming. I can talk about it! --Sucheta Ghoshal (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'd like to present on strategies for establishing notability for biographical articles on women and other underrepresented people, FOR those people. --Geeklizzard (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• I would like to present on Analysis of Telugu wikipedia contributions as per the location . --Pavithrans (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Anything else you would like to add (in terms of topics, workshops, formats, etc.)?

Your input here

• A random and hasty brainstormed list of topics I'm personally interested in:
  • Reframing the gender gap - can we come up with a better way to talk about the diversity issue than the meta gender gap page? how are other open source projects talking about diversity? are there common talking points we agree on?
  • Communication channels - mailing lists, on-wiki, email, Skype, IRC...what kinds of communications encourage diversity and which do not?
  • The role of online support in encouraging online diversity - Teahouse, Wikiwomen's Collaborative, etc. what kinds of support spaces encourage diversity? do we know what works or doesn't?
  • An "ideas into action" session towards the end of the conference, where we took a list of ideas and current projects that came up in sessions over the course of the conference (have a facilitator track these as we go), and then decide to work on a few initiatives in small teams.

Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I was going to post something along the lines of Siko's last idea: "Ideas into Action," so I will simply add a +1 here! It would be awesome to people split up onto some good ideas that emerged during the course of the conference and come up with actual proposals/plans/something! What would be cool is if we could document some of these brainstorms on something like the IdeaLab. Jwild (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

+1, particularly for the first point. I won't be able to attend the conference and I feel very sorry about that especially because of the lack of effective online spaces to talk about gender gap (and other diversity related issues as well). Perhaps the momentum generated by the conference could also lead to a refreshment and revitalisation of the gender gap mailing list? --Atropine (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've started a discussion at Wikimedia LGBT here. I don't think we can discuss diversity without including the LGBT community. Perhaps an overview of this proposed thematic organization... how it came to fruition, the potential of Wiki Loves Pride, possible organizational collaborations, outreach initiatives to attract current and new editors, etc. --Another Believer (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Near as I can tell, the proposed thematic organization is essentially inactive. No one has been in recent contact with aff-comm about moving forward. There are no ongoing activities by people interested in starting the organization. There are no attempts to form partnerships. The more interesting question might be why it has not taken off given the relatively large interest group. --LauraHale (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    • We (those interested in LGBT projects) are not clear yet if we are pushing for a Thorg or an on-going society. Creating a Thorg has administrative burdens that not many of us would want to volunteer to cover and there is no point in approaching AffCom until a board is formed with a track record of meeting minutes and reports. In the meantime, activities such as Commons:LGBT Free Media Collective and discussion of partnerships in various countries continues. I would call it a gradual formation, nobody has doubted that a global LGBT network for separate projects to draw upon is highly valuable, even if it mainly delivers a contact network in various locations. Not everyone knows that I am more than happy to support LGBT initiatives as an openly gay guy, and available in central London to talk to. --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Hi everyone. perhaps the discussion about whether an LGBT Thorg/affiliate/society should exist can take place else where then the planning talk page for a conference. Or at the conference. This space seems to be focused more on what people want to see take place at the conference, not how they see an organization being developed if at all. SarahStierch (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Agreed. This is not the place to discuss the org. in detail, but I hope we can agree that the LGBT community should be represented in a diversity conference. --Another Believer (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I disagree on this one. I think if there are a handful of people present that wish to discuss it - fantastic. It seems like a waste of resources to fly all of these interested people to Berlin and not engage in any conversation about this topic. We had some meaningful conversations in Hong Kong about a LGBT user group and other topics of interest - I do not think it took away from or interfered the overall experience of the event. I do agree that this talk page is not the place to talk about the future of the org.  :) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 08:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
          • To clarify - I disagree that the conference is not a good place to discuss organizing Wikimedia LGBT. Sorry if that wasn't clearer. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the clarification. For the record, me saying "this is not the place to discuss..." was in reference to this page, not this conference. --Another Believer (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Our chapter is running an outreach project in Wales, reaching out, among others, to the Welsh speaking community [2]. A lot of people would see language diversity as an important element of what we do - especially since UK is so diverse in this respect! This would be an interesting, and a little different, aspect of the conference. Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK are now supporting the wiki-work in Wales, especially the training of new editors. I'm now full time WMUK Manager in Wales, with the Welsh language high on the agenda. The Welsh Wicipedia is thriving and there are avant-garde open knowledge decissions being made by the Welsh Government, the National Library of Wales etc. Watch this space! By the way, our patron saint, Dewi Sant laid down the foundation of our philosophy: "Small is beautifu!" and that was in the 6th century. I hope to see you in the Conference, and all the best! - Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess a "World Café" could be a nice way to present all the different diversity initiatives/ programmes, it is probably more communicative than a session, where only a few best practice examples can be presented. What do you think? --Siesta (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm excited about this conference, although I won't be able to attend physically. I have started drafting an essay on the significance of the AGF policy in particular for those of us editors who are on the Autism spectrum. I've never done anything like this before, but I'm hoping that the essay could be considered for inclusion in the list of papers for this conference. The essay will conclude with a plea for wiki editors in general to become more accepting of differences in linguistic style and tone, in order to conform more closely with the intent and spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD). AugurNZ ✐⌕ 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Just adapted the structure a little to encourage you to propose your topics! --Cornelia Trefflich (WMDE) (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! I also added a spot for people to indicate interest so that we can add them to the list when more information is available (feel free to remove if that seems confusing). And also added a link to your talk-page proposal section from the main page. :) Siko (WMF) (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could break up the conference page into sub-pages. There has been too many signups and lot of information on the page already. In the coming days, we would also want to provide details about the logistics, travel, agenda etc. which would make the page still longer. Could we re-structure the format of the page into something like this? That would make it easier for those who are searching for key information about the conference for the first time, and make navigation easier for the rest of us. Though I am not an expert designer, I can volunteer to do this if I am given ideas on the background colour(s) to be used, number of tabs needed etc. It would also be a good idea to ask the opinion of the WMF designing staff (Heather Walls et al). --Netha Hussain (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I got this started - but would like others to improve on it, translate, make it better in general, etc. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 15:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks better now! Would that be a good idea to move the contents under "We look forward to receive your ideas" to the 'Program Submissions' subpage? First time visitors are unlikely to look for the topic suggestions on the discussion page. --Netha Hussain (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I could go either way - it's pretty lengthy. Another possibility would be adding a form on the Submission page to add ideas - which then adds to this talk page - or we could move the contents of that discussion to the submissions talkpage (which currently redirects to here). --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 00:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

cart before horses?

Given the low level of energy apparent in this conversation so far, perhaps planning the event is putting the cart before the horses? To my mind, there is only justification for the significant expenditure of the event if there is a preceding conversation and planning activity that is significantly more engaged than what we see so far. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The horse is already bolting across the field, methinks! From what I've seen, though, it looks like initial planning conversations are happening more off-wiki (email, hangouts, etc) rather than on. Which has, in its own interesting way, some diversity implications...I think we sometimes find that on-wiki planning isn't something everyone is comfortable with (perhaps subject for a talk at this conference?). I'd like to see some more on-wiki action here too though. Suggest that as things move forward via other channels, the organizers keep trying to encourage people to engage on this page as well. Making clearer channels/signups for what exactly people can do to get involved may be useful? Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Well, perhaps: I certainly can't form an opinion since I have not been aware of these other channels (the Gender Gap list does not seem to be one of those channels). But until there is some public evidence of a group committed to putting in the work, beside and before the fun travel opportunity, I question the decision to positively commit to this event taking place. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 20:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I share Asaf's view that this seems an event which has not evolved from a community group, but which rather looks like a top-down initiative of various chapters' employees. I would prefer that money was spend rather on initiatives that promise to be sustainable because they have evolved from intrinsic community engagement. just my 2 cents.--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The horse has already taken up momentum! I have been engaging in conversations with staff from WMDE and with many community members interested in diversity and related issues. I received the first of the mails regarding this conference in May. Since then, I have been following this page and suggesting my ideas on what I expect from the conference. Volunteers from at least three countries were also engaged in off-wiki conversations with me about this conference. The energy and enthusiasm is growing, only that it is not fully apparent publicly. This conference is also about discussing sensitive issues (race, ethnicity,gender) , which, I assume, is why many people are not comfortable with discussing about the conference in public space. It could also be that many active volunteers are unaware about the implications of having a diverse volunteer base for Wikimedia, which makes them uninterested in participating in discussions regarding the diversity conference. Now that the discussion about the conference has started on the Gender gap mailing list, I am expecting that more people would come this way and engage in the planning process. I am expecting that the diversity conference will bring about useful conversations among the volunteers, Chapters and researchers to work collectively for making Wikimedia more vibrant and colorful. One of the current goals of Wikimedia is to achieve more engagement from women and the Global South, but there haven't been significant discussions about how to achieve it. I think this conference will throw some light in creating action plans for achieving this goal. The conference will also help the participants to build lasting relationships and to begin collaborative projects to bring about diversity in our community.This would not be possible through purely online conversations - which is why I think a conference of this kind is very relevant. My experience at two similar conferences (Wikiwomen Camp and Ada Camp) I have attended was largely positive and beneficial. I hope this one would also be productive for the participants and relevant for the community. --Netha Hussain (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Cannot speak to Netha Hussain's knowledge, but I can say that I think it would be very useful. There was a recent conversation about engaging African American groups and doing research on minority editing populations on one of the WMF lists. I found WikiWomenCamp to be very useful in terms of inperson networking with like minded people who share similar goals. The WikiWomensCollabartive exists but adding an in person component could strengthen relationships and enhance existing programming by allowing for the development of other components to it. The women's only lunch at Wikimania is already hugely popular. We have had two Wikimedian in Residencies that specifically deal with people with disabilities. There appears to be a fair amount already going on. --LauraHale (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Asaf, there is a very engaged planning process going on and we are quite optimistic about the engagement of Wikimedians - although we aware that there is not too much time left until the conference. As WMDE has a specific focus on gender diversity this year, we aim to develop a diversity concept. We believe this topic to be of utmost importance, therefore we dedicate a whole conference to diversity. In doing so, we hope to mobilize as many people as possible who are interested in this topic. Indeed, it took some time to initiate the whole process, but now we are very happy to discuss important questions (e.g. to initiate a process of participation for everyone) and to handle the on-going process together with our partners. As Netha pointed out, we´ve got very positive feedback on planning the conference together, with all kinds of different aspects, projects and possibilities of (gender-)diversity being included. Still you are right, we will do more planning on-wiki! --Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE) (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate question, Asaf! This wiki-page as it stood when you joined in was not enough on its own to convince anyone to make major expenditures. Nonetheless, I do think you'll get some progress in the community if you assemble people around these topics. On the cost side, Germany is centrally located for Europe and North Africa, and not all that far from the East Coast of the US; certainly less remote for many than Hong Kong. From my perspective, it's great to see WMDE taking on the community-building role and keeping the community dialog moving. My impression is that SF is pretty busy with the software development push, and really does need to stay focused. We need to start working on ways to communicate without creating WikiDrama, and this is easier done in person. There are some serious concerns here, and people need to be able to speak openly without worrying that they'll be quoted out of context. It's important for editor retention. Otherwise folks just say, "whatever!", turn off the computer, and walk away. Djembayz (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

There is no doubt the general subject is worthwhile and important for the movement. You will note I was not questioning that, above. What I was questioning was the practice of committing to an international meeting, i.e. committing to spending tens of thousands of dollars of movement money on airfare, before a clear agenda and a core group of participants is determined.

(And of course you got very positive feedback on the idea of having a conference -- everyone loves to travel and meet other Wikimedians, so practically any proposed international gathering can easily get positive feedback.)

As I have said in person to some of you, I would like to see our international meetings (not just this one -- the Wikimedia Conference and other meetings as well!) be the climax of engagement around issues, that begins before the event and continues after it.

As the great variety of topics suggested in the sections above this one clearly shows, there is a tremendous amount of things we could talk about, regarding diversity. Now, which of these things are we going to talk about, face to face, and how do we make sure the participants that actually get to go are the ones actually committed to those topics rather than other ones, and are going to do the preparatory work and the work after the event? I still see no signs of a willingness to tackle this, and that makes me feel like the people who attend (determined how?) will once again end up spending the better part of a day just agreeing on what to talk about. That seems like a tremendous waste to me, and I repeat my request that we avoid this. There really is no good reason not to determine this in advance, on-wiki, so that we can make the most of the (truly valuable) face-to-face time at the conference.

Indeed, if a clear agenda and a clearly-engaged group of attendees around that agenda is selected, I would be interested in participating myself, as the topic has significant intersection with my own work (particularly in terms of geographic, language, and economic diversity). To that end, I will contribute to the agenda discussion above, but I still wait to see if a firm agenda and preparation work will be determined before the event. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Asaf, yesterday we added a timeline on Meta, which clearifies the next steps until the conference in November. There will definitly be a program before the conference as this event is a conference and not a barcamp. During the conference we will also have a moderator and we will make sure having a documentation of the conference, so we can hand findings and important discussion of the conference to other interested people, chapter, etc.

We asked for topics and questions people are interested in to get a closer look of what people in the community think about in terms of gender diversity and diversity in a broader context. I´m also very impressed by the enormous and wide ideas and important topics addressing diversity in Wikimedia-projects. What I see is that the range of topics of the "broader context of diversity" is (also it is very fascinating) still "too broad". Therefore the organisation team will provide a focus, which will go hand in hand with our movement targets. --Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE) (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! That's what I was hoping for -- focus and an agenda before the attendee/scholar list is determined, so that the right people (i.e. people motivated and ready to work on the focus topics) are attending, and so that at least some of them can show up prepared. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 08:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Translations

I´m bad to write in english but I can make the translation, can someone to able the option to translate? Excuse the fails. --Caleidoscopic (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Translations are now possible. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

¡Gracias!, thanks! now, can someone enable the frame where can see the lenguages availables? The main page is in english but no one knows nothing about the other version. --Caleidoscopic

Hey, the language frame is now available on the page. Until now I just found the french, spanish and german version - If there is another language version which I didn´t found, please notify me and I will include it or do it yourself - it is a wiki :) --Merle von Wittich (WMDE) (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Being non-notable - a proposed workshop on the invisible Wikipedia

A letter from c.1835, part of a historic anti-slavery campaign in the USA driven by women activists; some of these women are now thought notable enough for Wikipedia articles.

I would like to run or help coordinate a friendly workshop, rather than a fixed presentation, on gender equality and LGBT history "notability". My personal background has more of an LGBT focus rather than gender, and includes many past years supporting a UK gay archive (part of which was created for the UK's historic campaign for homosexual equality). Over the last few years (older) gay activists have been concerned about the loss of knowledge about how organizations and lobby groups evolved, often changing their names and structures over the decades, and how we capture information about the key activists (many of whom are now no longer alive to talk to). It turns out to be pretty darn difficult to find third party sources for this sort of history, though personal interviews and society correspondence can be found in specialist archives, and a couple of books have been written that skim the topic or delve into specific stories.

The standards for notability on the Wikipedias can be pretty hard to meet in these circumstances, and hard for new contributors to understand, so early UK minority societies and individuals tend to fail to meet the notability standard, and even listing societies tends to create debate (often with accusations of lobbying and conflict of interest). In practice my advice to enthusiasts has been to avoid touching any Wikipedia directly, but to think about publishing elsewhere and hope that by osmosis this will gradually inform these projects. A reaction to this Wikimedia imposed barrier to knowledge preservation has been the creation of sites such as WikiQueer.org and LGBTHistoryUK.org. Similarly, as a leading Wikimedia Commons volunteer, though I have uploaded many thousands of photographs of LGBT/Gay Pride around the world, it is hard to find early photographs in archives for which I can produce a free use licence by the original photographer (often unknown) so that historic material can be used on Wikimedia Commons or Wikisource. It could be that using and sponsoring non-Wikimedia open knowledge sites as a fertile and friendly development space is a good thing, however I feel that the Wikimedia movement is missing a trick when it comes to preserving rapidly vanishing or transient records and images as part of our shared mission to preserve.

My ideal outcome would be for us to shape proposals for innovative and realistic projects in several languages that do more to bring these areas of human knowledge and the history of understanding of diversity within the Wikimedia family. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have now put in a submission for the conference for this workshop, though my attendance will depend on a scholarship for travel. If you would like to see this session to be 2 slots instead of 1, please either raise some questions here or contact me by email. Note, I am travelling until the 20 September, so it may take that long for me to reply. --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The New York Public Library has the archives for New York City's en:Gay Men's Health Crisis, an early HIV education organization, and I would love to organize a proposal to get into their document archives and ask them to release the rights to some of their unexamined and unused documents which are just waiting for an archivist's curation. Many other organizations also must have historical documents for gay rights in their region and now is the time to collect and archive these before they are lost to time. That or any other high-profile project could set the precedent for many similar projects. I have thought a lot about how to raise prominence to LGBT leaders, who themselves perhaps do not need much attention but for the sake of young people like en:Jack Andraka who have called for greater visibility of LGBT role models in all fields and better professional collaboration between LGBT persons. LGBT discrimination is still a major problem in most of the world and a documentation project such as what Fae is proposing would be appreciated and used by a marginalized demographic and also be a step in the right direction of addressing the other gender gap on Wikipedia - disproportionate representation of minority genders. Thanks for the proposal Fae and keep it up. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Rejected - my proposal for this workshop and my application for a scholarship were both rejected. I'm unsure who from Wikimedia LGBT will be sponsored to go now. I will not be attending out of my own funds. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I am curious how the LGBT community is being represented. --Another Believer (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT: Past, Present and Future?

Wikimedia LGBT

This presentation will introduce Wikimedia LGBT, a proposed thematic organization that supports the development of LGBT-related content on Wikimedia projects. Learn about the group's mission and goals, its history and current status, and potential future activities (including possible intersections with the GLAM community and Wikipedia's Education Program, plus other interwiki projects). Wikimedia LGBT is one way to empower and engage the global LGBT community and their supporters to develop content under a free license or in the public domain. What will the future bring for this group? You can help decide! Come learn more and contribute to the discussion.

This proposal is vague, but I think it is important to provide conference attendees with a general introduction to the proposed thematic group. People may or may not feel as though a thematic organization is necessary for facilitating and supporting LGBT initiatives. Part of why I am interested in attending the conference is to gauge interest in this group, which has not conducted much outreach to date. Would LGBT Wikimedians and their allies be interested in joining this group? What are potential activities that could be supported by this group? These are questions I want to ask. My hope is that a general introduction to the group will spark conversations and lead to more detailed project proposals. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please let me know or share here. Thank you! --Another Believer (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been a supporter of a Wikimedia LGBT group being better established for all the above reasons named and for others not mentioned. Among other projects, I would like to see Wikipedia articles better documenting the gay pride events which annually happen in so many cities internationally, because these events often are connected to LGBT activism in any given place. Also in many countries, major cities will each have an LGBT center which receives public health funding to do outreach to gay males, because this is a population at increased risk for HIV education. I would like to see Wikimedia LGBT be able to partner with public health projects to do HIV education along with education about other STIs, because Wikipedia is the world's most consulted source of information about HIV (traffic for HIV and AIDS) as well as many other health topics. Wikipedia has something extremely valuable to offer to public health outreach sectors internationally and a solid LGBT Wikimedia organization would be the easiest way to develop a collaboration. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be unable to attend as my proposal was not accepted. Hopefully another contributor with interest in Wikimedia LGBT will be able to see how the proposed group could help support the LGBT community. Thanks for your consideration. --Another Believer (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I will be in attendance and presenting on LGBT Wikimedians - I sincerely hope there will be others present interested in discussing Wikimedia LGBT's future. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 23:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Great news--congrats! I look forward to reading your notes. --Another Believer (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

rejecting half of a session submission

Just as a brief comment... this is the only conference I have ever heard of rejecting one half a joint session submission while accepting (and scholarshipping) the other particiant in the joint session submission. For a number of reasons, this is a practice I would highly advise against in the future - it's understandable to only grant a scholarship to one participant but breaking up a joint session submission is not a best practice in submission selection ;). This is especially true when the joint session was only requesting one timeslot. Kevin (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, thank you for your comment and for pointing out this obvious mistake. When we created the confirmation emails, we did not consider the special case (accepting submission, rejecting scholarship) and just sent you the wrong message. We are absolutely aware that this would not have been best practise in conference organisation and hope you accept our earnest apologies. Both of you are welcome to present at the Wikimedia Diversity Conference! I hope this helps to clarify the issue. --Cornelia Trefflich (WMDE) (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Gender gap strategy page on meta

I'm really excited about meeting everyone in Berlin in November! Meanwhile, we've finally finished publishing the notes from a small SF gender gap strategy meeting that WMF hosted in July :) (yes, it only took me 3 months to get back to cleaning up the documentation...sigh). In hopes that it might provide some useful groundwork for the conversations ahead:

Gender gap strategy 2013.

Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks Siko! --Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE) (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Conference focus - gender gap vs. the digital divide

I posted this on Facebook earlier today ([3]), and I was wondering if some of my fears about how the program was arranged will be allayed, given that I have the feeling the conference places a disproportionate amount of weight on addressing the gender gap (something which otherwise I support and should in fact be addressed within the movement), when the conference seeks to discuss about diversity in general. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

“ Puzzled by the presentations being presented at this year's Wikimedia Diversity Conference (though this schedule is a draft).

While I think we should do more to address the gender gap, I can't help but feel that maybe we're focusing too much on the gender gap in a conference which ostensibly wants to promote diversity in general. I mean, come on: there are only three sessions on geographic/ethnic diversity, and the rest are on gender and Wikipedia? Is the fight for greater diversity on Wikipedia solely (or mostly) about bringing more women and LGBTQ people onboard?

I may sound like an old man ranting about his presentation proposal not getting accepted (and I respect their decision), but it is not fair for people in the developing world and the issue of the global digital divide - where there is more potential for project growth in the long run, and where we are also affected by the community's systemic biases - to be drowned out by what seems to be an apparent bias towards fixing the gender gap rather than giving equal airtime to both issues.

”

Dear Sky Harbor, we just added two more sessions which concentrate on geographic diversity ("Editor diversity on Chinese Wikipedia" and "So many languages: Challenges and opportunities for Wikimedia movement in India"). There are still more gender gap related presentations or workshops compared to those addressing geographic diversity. One reason is that we had more submissions concerning gender gap than others. A lot of people have concentrated on this topic for a longer time - I guess this could be one reason, why there are more initiatives due to this topic. And of course, other dimensions of diversity are very important as well, but, to come to appropriate findings within the limited time of the conference, we decided to focus on only two dimensions. (Personally, I believe some of these findings - also they come from gender diveristy related projects - can help us to break barriers down for other groups who are underrepresented at the moment.). --Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE) (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Julia. While I appreciate the response, I feel that the conference organizers could have done more to balance out discussion between geographic and gender diversity. Just because more submissions on gender diversity were submitted, or just because more people who study gender diversity have expressed interested in it, does not mean that the organizers couldn't do more to give both sides equal amounts of attention. Some of my points:

• Wasn't it possible to have imposed some sort of quota or ratio that would have made the distribution of sessions between the topics (and perhaps even attendance in general) more equitable? I presume that the conference is already biased towards gender diversity to begin with in terms of attendance (as you mentioned that there has generally been more interest in the conference from people who study gender diversity), so I am not too keen on being proud of having five sessions on geographic/ethnic diversity (out of 18 total) if a majority of the attendees will be there discussing gender diversity rather than geographic diversity. It's a conference seeking to discuss diversity in general: just because most of the submissions deal with one type of diversity, that should not mean that the conference should only deal, or should predominantly deal, with that type of diversity.
• Similar to Fae's inquiry below, I am curious as to how many people are attending the conference whose focus is more on geographic diversity than gender diversity, or let alone are from the developing world as compared to the developed world. While yes, issues in diversity between the two topics overlap to some extent, there are also unique challenges posed by dealing with the global digital divide that solutions that work for gender diversity may not work for issues of geographic diversity. In addition, I have noticed that most Wikimedians who are interested in talking about gender diversity are from the developed world, so I am leery of the presumption that gender diversity solutions could apply to geographic diversity problems, if the ones who will be conceptualizing those solutions are not from the developing world, or don't have significant levels of engagement with the developing world. (As it is, only one of the thirteen sessions on gender diversity explicitly deals with the developing world, which in this case is women in India. All the other sessions, and in fact all the other speakers at those sessions, are from developed countries, and we may end up having solutions to problems seen in the developed world, but not in the developing world without dealing with issues of bringing more people in from there first.)

I don't intend to demean the qualities of the attendees at the conference, but I just have a hard time believing that both issues will receive the equal airtime they both deserve if there appears to be a bias, intentional or otherwise, towards one end of the spectrum versus the other end, and where discourse will mostly be about that one end rather than both ends in equal proportion. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sky Harbor Thank you for question. You are correct when you mention that there were only 5 talks which are specifically about Geographic Diversity, but to compare numbers: there were eight talks which were specifically about Gender Diversity. The other ten talks were about Diversity in general. Gender Diversity was an important topic for the conference, but it was not the main focus of the conference. Our round up sessions also focused on the different topics of diversity. Here a table with the submissions: --Merle von Wittich (WMDE) (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Gender	Geographic	General
Promoting gender diversity through open innovation	Preservation of indigenous languages through Wikipedia	Inviting diversity: A playful approach to broadening our community.
Diversifying India through outreach among women	Editor diversity on Chinese Wikipedia	Engaging new editors by reducing barriers
Thematic edit-a-thons as a way to reach new groups	Wiki Indaba and the African agenda	Design Diversity
LGBT Outreach	So many languages: Challenges and opportunities for the Wikimedia movement in India	Creating a toolset for impact
Where´s the T in Wikimedia Diversity	Wikidata as a tool to bring initial information	Collaborating with other open source communities
Women edit - from a small local initiative to a nationwide network		The economy of diversity
Women scientists and philosophers on English Wikipedia		Diversity initiatives that worked in other open communities
Mentoring: How to mentor women and older people in the Wikimedia movement		The Teahouse: Why and how we internationalise it
		Ideas into Action: IdeaLab

Number attending and ratio of paid staff vs. unpaid volunteers

I am finding it hard to find out who is attending this conference and whether they are:

1. paid staff or unpaid volunteers,
2. the range of countries represented,
3. the proportions of un-funded, WMF funded or chapter funded attendees

Could some of these figures either be published by the conference organizers or the registration list be made public?

I have seen a rumour that a large proportion of attendees are staff being paid for their time, rather than unpaid volunteer contributors to our projects, I would like to see that debunked by some real numbers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There seems a delay in answering this question, should I be raising this as an issue somewhere else? --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Good morning Fae, no, right place here and thanks for your question. It is still possible to register for the conference at the moment, so I can´t give you a complete overview. But I will do after the conference. --Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE) (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Julia. In addition I would hope it is possible to publish the registration list, as is common practice for other conferences. --Fæ (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fae, yes, I will do this as well ;-) --Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE) (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If I am attending, then it is as unpaid volunteer in personal time and not as staff. (just fyi) Aude (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I as a participant has no objection in publishing my registration details, but I do not think it is a common practice in Wikimedia conferences to publish the details of the attendees. Wikimania, for example, does not give out details of the participants for privacy reasons. It would be good to publish the statistics regarding the conference, but not the list of individual participants or even their usernames. However, the right to publish the details rest with the organizers, and all participants would be obliged to respect the regulations laid out by them. --Netha Hussain (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it fair to go by best practice. It has been the norm at past conferences for attendees to be asked how they would like to be addressed, particularly what names or affiliation they would like on their public name tags, this does not have to be their legal name but one would expect attendees at a Wikimedia conference to have some reputation or fairly direct affiliation in the Wikimedia movement, especially if Wikimedia monies are paying for their expenses. Similarly it would be bizarre for WMF or Chapter employees to want to hide the fact of who their employer is at an open Wikimedia conference, even if they are electing to attend as a volunteer rather than in an official capacity. To this extent I see nothing wrong with publishing an attendee list.

If Wikimedia were seen to be secretly funding undeclared attendees to go to open conferences, then I think there is a problem with the way charitable monies are being spent, as this would make scholarships and grants unaccountable and potentially prone to being used in ways that were not best value. --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for both comments. I will find out about how we can deal with the wish publishing the attendees list. --Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE) (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fae, we asked the attendees of the Conference to sign with their wikiname on this Page. Please be aware that this list is by no means complete, but still might be helpful. --Merle von Wittich (WMDE) (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see it is not complete. Hopefully all of those that are being paid or on a scholarship to attend will sign, it becomes truly odd if charity money is funding people in secret, and therefore becomes unaccountable, when there is no particular reason for this to happen. It will be useful to be able to have a published final attendee figure for the conference to compare to, this will give an indication of how complete the list is. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fae, you inquired about the the attendees of the conference. We asked the participants to sign their name on Meta Participants (but not everyone who attended the conference signed up). After evaluating the list from the registration desk, are now able to give you some numbers: We had 86 people attending, including the organisation team from WMDE. The attendees came from the following countries: Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Germany, Hungary, India, Netherlands, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA, Uzbekistan. Many of the attendees came, of course, from Germany, owing to lower travel costs and time. Second in row was the USA - the Foundation was sending eight people from different departments to give and receive input about diversity while some of them attended on their private capacities. On top of that, volunteers and scholarship holders came from the United States. Eleven employees from WMDE were present at the conference. Most of them combined their interest in the topic with helping out at the conference. For example they helped to document the sessions and were responsible for the rooms etc. 22 people received a scholarship through the combined funds of WMDE. (UK financed two scholarship holders.) All scholarship holders were volunteers. --Merle von Wittich (WMDE) (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those numbers. However, under the category of volunteers, there are employees and presumably contractors. So the total number of employees (which you appear to have stated as 19/86) is incorrect as other employees/contractors were taking part that have not been counted as they prefer to be counted as volunteers. Similarly of the 22 scholarships, at least one was paid to an employee rather than to an "unpaid volunteer". Your statement makes it appear that only the WMF and WMDE were sending employees, which was evidently not the case. Is there a way of correcting this so that the numbers and the context is more accurate? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fae, the number of employees stated by me also covered the contractors, as far as I was aware of them, for WMF and the one from WMDE. My holiday started today - I will be back in the office on the 10th of December. Before this date I cannot reply to your other questions. --Merle von Wittich (WMDE) (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Grants:IdeaLab/Wiki Loves Pride 2014

Please see Grants:IdeaLab/Wiki Loves Pride 2014, which outlines one way to encourage diversity and Wikimedia content. Comments, support, concerns, etc. all are encouraged. Thanks so much! --Another Believer (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Next events

Hello, I'm curios whether do you want to continue this event and Do you have a plan for another diversity conference. Thank you Amir (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Amir, at the moment WMDE does not plan an other Diversity Conference. In the last year we have worked together with Beuth University of Applied Science and created this publication: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charting_diversity. You are welcome to look at it and comment on it. Merle von Wittich (WMDE) (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC is interested in hosting the Diversity Conference in June 2015. harej (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Very cool. Thanks for sharing, James. --Another Believer (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Diversity Conference in Stockholm 2017

Hi!

Wikimedia Sverige is in the early stages of planning a two day Diversity Conference in late 2017, in Stockholm, Sweden!

If you think that this is a worthwhile effort and that it would be fun and interesting, please support our bid with an endorsement!

We hope to make the entire process very open and inclusive from the start, and we are looking for people interested in participating in the program committee.

Best,

John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Move?

Should this be moved to Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013 because there is also Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2017 now? And this page could be changed to a disambiguation format or something else. Stryn (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So it was moved. Stryn (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't there also a diversity conference in Washington, D.C.? -Another Believer (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)